Entertainment desk
< March 11	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 13 >

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.

March 12

Singers who have daughters named Vanessa

I've been looking for a song for around eight months that I heard a couple of times in Russia. Don't remember most of the lyrics, but I know one part sounds like "All I wanna Saints come maarchin/comin (either or) in". Russian Top 40's for June/July 2012 were unsuccessful. Heard it again today and while the guy couldn't pinpoint the song name, he said the singer's daughter was named Vanessa. Anybody know singers with daughters named Vanessa? Buggie111 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you don't mean When the Saints Go Marching In? Can you tell us more about the type or genre of song? Rojomoke (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pop song which is rather slow but upbeat. The lyrics don't match When the Saints Go Marching In, and I probably think the part I remember actually consists of different words (although the house which had that song playing seems to have a Saints logo on some of their car seats). I'll try and write it in melody assistant (at least the part I remember) and upload that. Buggie111 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

olympics 2012 props designer

who designed and produced the costumes in the opening ceremony i want information about the costumes used in the forging of the olympic rings section82.27.86.121 (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The designer was Suttirat Anne Larlarb, who worked with Danny Boyle on Slumdog Millionaire. See also Time Magazine: Q&A: Suttirat Larlarb, Olympic Opening Ceremony Costume Designer. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the film industry underestimating the audiences?

Hi all.

It has come to my attention, that many tv shows and movies treat their audiences like their were complete fools. I have brought you a clip[1], which shows, how the crew of CSI New York talks utter nonsense and shows the obvious computer illiteracy of its writers. We have the 21st century! Nearly EVERBODY knows how a computer works! The articles under [2] and [3] show even more technology illiteracy.

My question is: why does it seem, that they constantly make the very same errors, despite that mostly all people on our planet understand at least the basics of how a computer works. Do modern writers seriously want to embarrass themselves? I have ask once a very similar question about swordplay in movies, but this is a different thing: most people have never used a real sword or any weaponry at all, but almost everyone owns a computer. Do they never any research at all?

Thank you for your responses

All the very best--92.105.188.31 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who can type something in Word (or whatever the writer was using) and browse the web a bit is knowledgeable about computers beyond that (in fact I know several people like that). You'd think that someone at some point in the creative process would know enough so as not to make it sound silly though... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just about everybody drives a car, too, but they keep making movies where the bad guys' car explodes into a massive fireball when any one of the wheels leaves the ground. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unrealistic to expect fictional stories to be realistic. Also, this quote, attributed to H. L. Mencken: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at it logically. There must be some people who don't know when the film is wrong. Then there are probably far more that don't care ("Don't think too much about it, just enjoy it"). Then there are those who do care, but not enough to skip the movie or demand their money back. So, the film makers can make money off all those groups. I agree that there's a group who would pay only to see quality movies, where all the facts are right. However, that apparently is a rather small group, so few movies are written for them. (Of course, those people have to know how accurate the film is before they make their purchase decision, and this can be tricky, too.) StuRat (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearly EVERBODY knows how a computer works!" - No. Nearly EVERBODY knows how to work with a computer for what they need to use it for. The line is silly and stupid for those that understand it, but for most people it's probably just computer related things they've probably heard of strung together. --Onorem ♠Dil 07:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Onorem. Most people have no idea what those things (GUI, Visual Basic, IP address) are. So it's just "I'll create a computer-thing computer-thing to see if I can computer-thing". It's like a lot of science fiction where it's "I kept the ship from exploding by science-thing science-thing". Most people aren't rocket scientists, so if it sounds science-y enough, it's good to go. Dismas|^(talk) 08:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that for some of the Star Trek series, the scripts were literally written with the term "tech" in such places, then somebody else had the job of filling those spots in with convincing techno-babble: "The tech is down to 11% and if the tech doesn't hold the tech might explode !" StuRat (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used to get a great laugh out of Lee Meriwether, the terribly earnest and concerned looking scientist with the perennial white lab coat in The Time Tunnel. When they had to send the 2 heroes Tony and Doug down the Time Tunnel and back into the past, or get them back to the present, she'd sit at her impossibly complex control panel, and she'd make up a completely new random set of knob pushings, dial twiddlings and level pullings each time. Great fun, and much better acting than the two wooden heroes. It was ludicrous, even by 1968 standards. (The same year 2001: A Space Odyssey came out; what a contrast.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, what about the computer tape reels turning in most any movie when large tape reels were used in computer centers. Close Encounters, for example. When I saw that, I thought, "They're encountering aliens. They picked a fine time to run their system backups!" This stuff is akin to the MacGuffin - it's not really important, it's just a prop. Nonsensical stuff like that was made fun of in movies like Airplane and Galaxy Quest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two different ways to use computer tapes. The most recent usage to go obsolete was for backups (I think a few tape backup systems still exist, though). An older use was similar to how RAM is used, to store data and code for a running program. That is, the tape would go forward, grab a bit of code or data, maybe back up a bit, and write a bit of data out, then go to another location on the tape to load in a new subroutine, etc. Incredibly inefficient compared to modern RAM, but that's all they had at the time. The memory in the computer itself just wasn't sufficiently large to hold a program and its data at once. StuRat (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Tapes could be used for capturing the output of a program. But disks were getting pretty good-sized by the late 1970s, I should think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear gentlemen: I understand that fantasy and sci-fi movies need to have fictional technologies and terms and that it is important for a action movies to have exaggerated action scenes, where gravity does not seem to exist, but I am talking about tv shows and movies which are supposed to take place in the present reality. Gentlemen, maybe I am highly overestimating the target audience, but nobody can be uneducated enough to think that mmorpgs like World of Warcraft have a highscore! The computer illiteracy that is shown on display in shows like Navy CIS and CSI New York downright scare me.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to be paying attention to the plot, not the gadgets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What plot? The primitve one even a 4th grader could write? Don't get me wrong, but the viewer has to have a really short attention span to merely enjoy something like this.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why bother watching? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am a person who enjoys most old movies and tv shows! I would love to turn on the tv and not see any "works" that make me question the future our culture. The studios do not seem to create well written tv shows and movies anymore, the elements of storytelling aren't like they used to be. There is really no logical argument for horrible writing and terrible characerizations. If they are not even able to create at least a believable environment, they fail at everything. The writing we see nowadays in games, tv shows and movies shows either a generation of lazy writers or authors with a very limited, almost childish understanding of the reality. Hopefully, there will always be a exception to the rule of schlock productions.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, that they never seem to do any research at all (especially in movies that take place in former time periods). I am currently studying German and I noticed, that in most movies where "German people" appear, they are not even trying to properly speak German. They speak some gibberish that doesent even try to simulate real German. Are they really too uneducated to take a German dictionary? Look how they show the Russian language: Good gracious!--92.105.188.31 (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between good storytelling and accuracy in technical details. Even older movies and TV shows get the details wrong. Have you ever seen a show where two people are talking on the radio and one says "over and out"? How about where someone is working with metal objects in Arctic temperatures? Handguns that not only have an unlimited supply of ammunition but are accurate at distances over 2 km (1.2 mi)? Badguys that use automatic weapons but can't hit anybody with them? Goodguys that get shot but are still able to operate normally? A scene where 10 badguys surround the hero and then attack one or two at a time? These can all be viewed in older movies and TV shows. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CambridgeBayWeather, thank you for your submission. Yes, I have noticed these errors too, but most of the older movies were made with a pretty low budget and a relatively small crew and also without modern technologies like the internet, those were not expensive 180 million dollar productions. If you ask me, both good storytelling and accuracy in technical details suck these days (like I said, there will always be excellent movies, but they seem to get rare). Look, I am not expecting something equal to Shakespeare's works, I only wish to see more quality made movies, regardless of the genre!--92.105.188.31 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that when characters in programs like CSI want something quickly from a computer, they frantically type around a dozen keystrokes, never touch their mouse, and instantly the most detailed security camera photo resolution of all time appears. I wish this computer I'm typing on was that good. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, the creators of CSI have obviously no idea, how to use a computer.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, between those creators and us, guess which group likely has more money? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

92.105.188.31, did you notice though that none of the things I mention require a large budget or crew and modern technology. Also were old movies (and what time period are we talking about) on the whole better than today's? Or is it just that you are remembering the good films from then but forgetting about the bad ones that were made? Some movies are going to stand the test of time and will still be watched today while the majority will have long been forgotten. Take a look at 1940 in film, 1950 in film, 1960 in film and so on. Every page in the "year in film" articles will no doubt list some movies that are considered great and people still watch but the large majority are not remembered by many. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: there is a difference between a good movie and a very successful one! the bad movies of Michael Bay, Adam Sandler and Marcus Nispel make tons of money. Most people have a average to low intelligence and tend to stay away from well made movies like Citizen Kane or Hugo! Have you ever seen Navy CIS? It makes CSI (whatever show) look like a masterpiece... @CambridgeBayWeather: you are absolutely correct! My problem is not, that they are not producing good movies nowadays, my problem is, that most movies today are sequels, spin-offs and prequels of older ones which were really, really bad! There is a very small group of original, new movies! Since bad movies with explosions and computer generated effects are doing very well in box office, the very good productions with stories, well written characters and believable environments are like outcasts! The bad b-movies of the 50s didnt have the production values of more than 100 million dollars! Gentlemen, please take a look at modern day productions like the Transformers movies, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter or Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, all these movies are by any means bad films, but they have made millions of dollars and had cost that were twice as much as the entire classic Star Trek- franchise!--92.105.188.31 (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the film industry, if it makes money, then it's a good film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: you are right my friend, I assume this is the harsh reality in the modern day film business. There is no objective point, why a blockbuster should be mindless and uncreative, but I guess it is easy to create a bad movie than to make a really good one.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is a matter of individual taste. A lot more people saw the Star Wars series than the Star Trek series. The latter has always had a "cult" following, which is part of why it didn't do well on TV in the 1960s. Most moviegoers like Star Wars. But there was some sharp criticism of it, by some, on the grounds that it was mindless entertainment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Star Trek is definitely more intellectual than Star Wars. But the original Star Wars movies did what they were expected to do: they were entertaining sci-fi movies with a original story, and a creative and believable environment. Most modern day blockbusters fail even at the very basics: the transformers movies of Michael Bay for example were braindead movies with explosions, without any sign of creativity, these productions were simply made for cash. I think that it is too bad, that not more people are listening to film critics. Have you seen the new Star Wars prequels and the Star Trek reboot? They destroyed everything good and entertaining from the original Star Wars movies and downgraded Star Trek to a Michael Bay movie, with a very fast but idiotic plotline (and horrible acting). A gentlemen named Michael Stoklasa has made excellent movies reviews, he deals there with the "everything-seems-to-go-worse-in-Hollywood"-problem.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when I went to school in the late 90s. We made jokes about bad movies, that could seemingly never exist. One idea was a movie, where "Abraham Lincoln fights zombies and vampires at night on the roof of a train"! This even sounded like a completely idiotic idea. We also made fun of the idiotic idea, that there could be violent fairy tales... Gentlemen, these crappy ideas finally seem to have reached the realms of reality... They are making the exactly bad movies, we thought could never ever been made.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is not a chatroom or a place for you to sound off about your views on Hollywood. Furthermore, you're presenting your views as objective facts, which they are not at all. To take one example, millions of people watch and enjoy the Transformers films. They even get good reviews, sometimes. The film studios know exactly what they are doing, and what they are doing is making films for people to enjoy. --Viennese Waltz 11:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as human objectivity. All humans react and evaluate on a subjective level. The only real objective facts in reality are the ones, which science is able to determine. It is clear, that most humans have low intelligence quotients and thus a very short attention span and also a very limited understanding. Movies like the Transformers trilogy are addressed at the masses.--92.105.188.31 (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is wrong with that, in your opinion? Would you prefer that all movies be aimed at intelligent people like yourself? --Viennese Waltz 15:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the compliment. No, I am glad, that there are movies for all groups. But many people seem to be unhappy with most modern movies, simply because they do not connect with the audience at all. There is no logical reason, why a blockbuster could not be smart entertainment with a well written story, a excellent cast and good, convincing effects, bound with fast action scenes. Movies like the Matrix and some of the Star Trek movies, were aimed both at a general audience and intellectuals (I count ourselves to the latter ones). Dear ladies and gentlemen, it is clear to me, that it is much easier to make a simple movie than a complex one. But my question remains: why is the film industry underestimating the audiences? Couldn't be, that all people enjoy well made movies, regardless of the individual intelligence level?--92.105.188.31 (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "action films" all look like video games. That's a clue right there. By the way, I thought Matrix was obvious, derivative, and generally lame. It's a matter of taste. For that matter, several of the "Best Picture" Oscar winners recently have been pretty lame also. No Country for Old Men and American Beauty, to name two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the archetypal "worst movie", Plan 9 from Outer Space, which cost about a buck and a quarter to make, has probably made millions over the years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain criterias, how a movies gets judged by professional critics and cinematic historians. If two people talk about their subjective views of a movie, they are both fighting a losing battle. Thomas Kuhn has written a very interesting book on the topic. My still unaswered question remains: why would Hollywood want to underestimate the audiences?--92.105.188.31 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to anyone that the writers are actually interested in making the actors look like fools? For example, how many crime shows don't have a nerdy girl computer geek with pony tails and a dog collar, or the equivalent? μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has occurred to me. Stereotypes and bland characters are easy to write and seem to appeal to a big part of the audience (most writers pretend, that this development has comedic reasons). All of the crime shows have the very same characters: the perfect, near invincible hero and main protagonist, who has to suffer with personal losses (a family member, best friend, partner etc.), the macho-clown/nettler who seems to have no intelligence at all (which bears the question, how he was able to become a part of such a special team in the first place), the geek/genius/weird character who is awkward but loveable, the rude, aggressive and very militaristic character, who uses violence as a solution for everything, the list of characters could go on, but I stop here. Gentlemen, I assume that we live in the very age of lazyness. Art becomes more and more commercial and less artistic. What will be the fruit, the very final result of this progress? The death of the television and modern cinema?--92.105.188.31 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see the irony in your statements 'the bad movies .... make tons of money' 'Most people have a average to low intelligence' and 'many tv shows and movies treat their audiences like their were complete fools'. Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do. But I do not see the need to mistreat people with an average to low intelligence. Even if it is part of the politics of the modern film industry to expect only nonintellectual people to be the main audience, does not mean in any way, that this would be acceptable for a well educated person.---92.105.188.31 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Carson, 1940 film

Hello, I am watching the 1940 film "Kit Carson", which Wickipedia says is shot on location in Cayente, AZ. However, there is no such place listed or found in an atlas. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.70.45 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like maybe it's an alternate spelling for Kayenta, Arizona. I found a Living on Earth transcript from 2000 talking about a group of students from Cayente which says they're from Monument Valley High School, itself in Kayenta. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]