Entertainment desk
< April 6	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 8 >

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.

April 7

Photo....

How can I get a new picture to replace the one you're currently using for an actress? Thanks, Steve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.236.163 (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You take your camera, snap a photograph of the actress in question, then upload it to Wikimedia Commons. There are other methods available, but that is the one which is the simplest in terms of the rules Wikipedia has in place for uploading photos. --Jayron32 16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users aren't allowed to upload pictures either to Wikimedia Commons or to Wikipedia; you need to register an account. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most good photos have copyright restrictions on them, not allowing us to use them. A smart agent will release at least a few high quality pics to the public domain, to ensure that their client gets more free publicity. StuRat (talk)

You might wish to ask this at the Help desk where more people hang around who specialize in the wikipedia-how-tos and -where-tos. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grease (film song)

There is this line from Grease: "Well, she was good you know what I mean". My interpretation is that the two main characters had sex. But then, the movie's published in 1978, and assuming that the setting is contemporary of that time, that'd put the characters in the Baby Boom generation. What were American cultural attitudes in regards to hetersexual unmarried sex in the late '70s? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) It was not set in the 70's, but in the 1950's.

2) At that time a girl who had premarital sex was considered to be immoral, except in some peer groups. A boy who had premarital sex was admired. Quite the double standard.

3) Just because a boy implied that they had sex doesn't mean it was true. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, if a boy does not want to cause trouble for non-prostitute women, he may have sex with prostitutes instead? Could teenagers pay for prostitute services with or without adult supervision? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not legally, in most places in the US. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a boy actually to say that he had sex with a girl was considered a low-class thing to do. This created an opportunity for someone like Danny, because he could lead his friends to think that he had sex with Sandy without actually saying so. In actuality, they have only kissed, and this is the only concrete thing he claimed to have done ("made out under the dock"). Now, if Sandy were to accuse him of "kissing and telling," he could say he had done no such thing (literal kissing and telling being acceptable). Of course, his friends, or at least the smarter ones, know the rules too, and that Danny has deliberately left them in a state of uncertainty as to whether he and Sandy had sex or not. John M Baker (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, it's the 1950s way of saying: "Shut up. It's none of your business." 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he welcomed the opportunity to imply he had sex with her, without actually saying so. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though, any state of uncertainty on this matter, if it had occurred during the Victorian era, would count as "Yep. They had sex," unless it's paired up with evidence and a defiant "No." 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film and play actually deals explicitly with the problem of premarital sex, by contrasting the characters of Sandy and Rizzo. It's rather clear that Rizzo is willing to have sex, while Sandy is not. This difference is made overt in the number "Look at Me, I'm Sandra Dee" and its later reprise when Rizzo believes herself to be pregnant. --Jayron32 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film down played the sexual content a great deal, which is why the OP is a little confused but if you have seen the original stage production...its a little raunchy.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film was a little less raunchy, but only a little (IIRC, the song "Greased Lightning" altered the lyrics from "the girl's will cream" to "the girl's will scream" for example), but there's enough innuendo even in the film to make it plain that Rizzo puts out. And she does make it clear that she believes she is pregnant and later finds out she's not. Audiences that don't know how pregnancy happens probably have a lot more of Wikipedia to read before coming here to ask any question. --Jayron32 19:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, people in the 1950s had unprotected sex. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we're all here today, I would hope so. Otherwise there'd be lots of virgin births that would need some theological explaining. --Jayron32 01:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People in the 2010s do as well. It's not like 1960 arrived and everyone started using protection for their premarital sex. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The common thread is denial and ignorance. As in, "It couldn't hurt to do it just once." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget ... the film-makers probably wanted to insure a "PG" film rating (as opposed to an "R"), in order to gain a wider audience (i.e., young teenagers under the age of 17). So, they probably had to "clean it up" a bit and perhaps leave some of the cruder content to be hidden between the lines. A theatrical production does not have the same concerns or constraints, generally speaking. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is there a Beatle connexion?

I was recently given The New Beatles Top 40 Pop Song Book (circa 1970), containing sheet music (piano with guitar chords) for forty songs, most of which are familiar; a couple of them are unknown to me but now I learn that they were recorded by Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers before they were THE BEATLES, viz "Take Out Some Insurance on Me, Baby" and "Why".

Here also is "Good Golly Miss Molly". What has that to do with the Beatles? —Tamfang (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any recording, just hints that they may have performed GGMM in their early live days (see here, for one example). Dominic Pedler calls it "another early live staple" in his book The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles. The film Backbeat has them performing it, and so does the stage version, from what I gathered. And, of course, they loved Little Richard. Is "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" (see article for why I'm asking) in the same songbook? ---Sluzzelin talk 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Richard was an early source of material for the Beatles. Anthology 1 contains recordings of "Long Tall Sally" and "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey!" as well. Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962 has the same two Little Richard songs. --Jayron32 01:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Dizzy" is in the book; I didn't ask about it because it's on Help!. (Jayron's two songs are not in the book.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought DML might not be in the song book because of its similarity to Miss Molly. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]