Entertainment desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

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.

August 22

Is That True?

They say that Zayn Malik Is dating Cara Delevinge, Is that true Or just a rumor? Chandelia16 (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She is dating Annie Clark, according to citations in both their articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Zayn Malik's not dating anyone? But well thank you.Chandelia16 (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. He seems to have broken up with his fiancee. You still have a chance! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great.Chandelia16 (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (film)

Are the pale monster that got part of his arm cut off early in the film and his kind that ride around on big wolf creatures the same "species" or class of beings as the population that live in the mountain with the big fat king with the baggy chin? If so, what are they called in that world's fiction? If not, what are each called? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Tolkein's works, these are called, alternately, goblins and orcs, Tolkein uses the words interchangeably, see Orc (Middle-earth) for more details. There are a wide number of races of orcs/goblins. --Jayron 32 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I noticed that in the scene where the big pale one was about to have one of his minions kill Thorin (when they were all on the precipice with the trees on fire) and when Bilbo jumped in to stop the one that was about to kill Thorin, his sword wasn't shining blue, which made me think there was a difference. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That character is called Azog, "an Orc chieftain". More information here. Apparently he has a greater role in the film than in the book. Alansplodge (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has to have a bigger role in the films than in the book. The Hobbit book was shorter than one volume of LotR, to stretch it into over 6 hours of film required some serious additional story. --Jayron 32 23:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie, goblins (whom Thorin's party encounter as they leave Rivendell) seem to be distinguished from orcs (elsewhere). In the book The Hobbit, the climactic battle involves goblins; Appendix A to LotR says "the Orcs came down upon Erebor" [the Lonely Mountain]. The word goblin is used a few times by hobbits in LotR, always applied to what the narration calls orcs. —Tamfang (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In cinema, The Jazz Singer revolutionized sound. But which film revolutionized color?

It's understood that the "Jazz Singer" revolutionized sound in cinema. But which film revolutionized color? Which film would be considered the "Jazz Singer" of color? Fanddlover17 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't one, really. Lots of movies used color pretty much from the beginning of moviemaking, but in the early days it was not only expensive but didn't produce great results. The process that made good color possible was three-strip Technicolor, but it was still expensive and appeared just before the Great Depression, so the studios backed off from a rapid changeover to color the way they had changed to sound after The Jazz Singer. Two important color movies in 1939, The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind, helped establish the practice that certain types of movies would be made in color if the studio could afford it, and I think they're the nearest thing there is to an answer. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) and The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when it comes to overall commercial and technical success, those four films from the 1937-1939 era mentioned above are always on short lists to a title like this. Another candidate is Becky Sharp (1935) and The Garden of Allah (1936). Note those are all Technicolor films. The Germans had their own competing process with Agfacolor, with the most notable titles being Women Are Better Diplomats (1941), Die goldene Stadt (1942), Münchhausen (1943), and Kolberg (1945).

In the field of reversal stocks, there was Kodachrome invented in 1935, albeit mainly for amateur use, as the fact that it was a slide film made for a lower potential for commercial print-making. Two notable and widely known Kodachrome movies prior to WWII were 16mm documentaries, one being on the 1939 New York World Fair, the other being about the Nazi German Day of German Art.

However, while still highly experimental, impractical, and never a commercial success, the very first natural three-color motion picture process that could produce a quality of color rendition and briliance rivaling both Technicolor, Agfacolor, and Kodachrome was Gaumont's Chronochome process, originally demonstrated c. 1912, where three filmstrips were simultaneously exposed to red, green, and blue light respectively by three synchronized cameras, and in projection all three filmstrips were superimposed upon each other. Pity we don't have an own article for this process yet, as several nice-looking clips are on YouTube, one of a French town and one of a 1913 German royal parade in Berlin.

Less successfull on a technical level in today's eyes was Edward Raymond Turner's 1902 sequential three-color system, where every frame held either red, green, or blue light information, and it was intended that the rapid succession during projection would make the three color spaces merge into one in the viewer's eye (early NTSC worked a lot like this, see field-sequential color system). Turner died before he could finalize his invention, and stage hypnotist George Albert Smith did away with one color, thereby producing 2-color Kinemacolor in 1906, the first commercially used motion picture color system. Many so-called Kinemacolor descendents, all 2-color and (at first) sequential, sprung up (under names such as Technicolor process 1-3, 2-color Kodachrome, Biocolour, or Prizma), from c. 1913 onwards until technologically far superior Technicolor, Agfacolor, and Kodachrome arrived in the mid-1930s. The two main developments with the Kinemacolor technique between 1902 and the mid-1930s was to go from projectors fitted with rotating filters to stencilling or dying every frame in its respective color, so regular projectors could be used, and, with the more advanced systems, progressing from sequential 2-color (where the dominant of the two colors would alternate with every frame) to 2 colors simultaneously in the same frame. The first Kinemacolor film brought to the paying public was A Visit to the Seaside (UK release in 1908), and a popular Kinemacolor film was 1912's With Our King and Queen Through India. Popular films made in Kinemacolor descendants included The Open Road (1926), The Viking (1928), Gold Diggers of Broadway (1929), and Doctor X (1932). --80.187.106.89 (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Is there a difference between "descendents" and "descendants"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than me not knowing how to spell? Nope. Though I should probably add that people in the 1920s stopped considering Kinemacolor descendents such when systems switched from sequential two-color (where the dominant color alternated with every frame between either R-G or R-B) to two-colors in every single frame. The upgrade was reminiscent of Gaumont's 1912 experimental three-strip, three-color Chronochrome system and was achieved by using mirrors or prisms to expose two different filmstrips inside a single camera, one with red light and the other with green or blue light, and after processing, each strip was dyed in its own color and the two were simply cemented together in-synch, so that a single, two-layer strip ran through the projector, where the RG or RB color space was achieved simply by means of the additive effect where both strips lay on top of each other.

Two-color Kodachrome was the first process to do this in 1915, and henceforth, people spoke of "bi-packs" when two colors were achieved this way, instead of by utilizing the old sequential way. But up until the mid-1930s, both the sequential systems and the bi-packs peacefully co-existed because a.) the original sequential system had accidentally ended up in the public domain around 1914, and b.) either still looked too ugly and crude to be any large success for always lacking either Green or Blue. Three-color, non-sequential Chronochrome from 1912 looked technically brilliant for its day, but was much too difficult, experimental, and expensive for requiring three cameras and three projectors, albeit it originally triggered the step first from sequential color systems to additive "bi-pack" systems with several colors in every frame at the same time, as well as that it eventually foreshadowed the classic three-strip, three-color Technicolor process 4 of the mid-1930s, which was essentially Chronochrome, only using but one camera, rather than three as Gaumont had, thus eliminating the paralaxis error Gaumont's system had come with. --80.187.106.89 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]