Entertainment desk
< June 27	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 28

Something to do with Detroit and songs

Songs About Detroit: I Think You Should add Makin' Thunderbirds, from the Bob Seger album "The Distance," to this list. Definitely Detroit Related. They were made at the Wixom Plant, just outside of Detroit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.254.227 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Detroit is the article in question - you can edit it yourself! (This article was up for AfD in 2007, and survived - I'm not sure it would be so fortunate today). Tevildo (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is membership in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences automatic if you win an Academy Award/Oscar?

The general question is: how do they extend membership into the Academy? I assume the Academy (or some subgroup of it) makes a determination either subjectively or through some criteria. Does anyone know how this works? But, to get to my real question: is membership extended to anyone who ever wins an Oscar? In other words, if you win an Oscar, you will be invited to join. Is that how it works? Or, among all Oscar winners, some are invited and some not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences#Membership not answer your question? --Jayron 32 02:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am confused. That article states: "Membership eligibility may be achieved by earning a competitive Oscar nomination." Does that mean (A) once you get an Oscar nomination, you become eligible to be a member, but there are still more hoops and steps to the process before you get a membership? Or (B) once you get an Oscar nomination, you "automatically" become a member? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an actor is not invited to membership in the Academy when they win an Oscar, but a little earlier, when they are nominated for the Oscar, and that there is also a sponsorship process. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the primary source at http://www.oscars.org/about/join-academy may answer some of your questions. Yes, one who is nominated for an Oscar automatically becomes eligible to become a member (and do not require sponsors). But all candidates must first be approved by the appropriate branch committee first, who then each send their recommendations to the Academy's Board of Governors. It is the Board of Governors who have the final say on which individuals receive an invitation to become a member (I believe this final point is written into the Academy's bylaws). I myself could see a possible situation where a famous singer-songwriter gets nominated for Best Original Song, but the Board of Governors might get hesitant because this person is otherwise not really active in the film industry. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. So, in my post above (at 03:02, 28 June 2015 UTC), I listed an alternative "A" and an alternative "B". You are saying that "A" is the case, and not "B". Correct? So, getting an Oscar nomination does not "equal" automatic membership. There are still a few other hoops to go through (e.g., Board of Governor vote, etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, to clear up a point of confusion. I was reading the following list of Academy invitations to membership this year (Academy Invites Record 322 New Members in Push for More Oscar Diversity). I am not familiar with many of the categories/branches, so I will stick with the most publicly visible (namely, actors and actresses). In the list at that above link, why isn't every single actor and actress nominated in the last Oscar ceremony invited? (This was the most recent ceremony: 87th Academy Awards.) In fact, very few are. I don't understand. All of those twenty actors and actresses (5 Best Actor nominees, 5 Best Actress nominees, etc.) are eligible to become a member. Yet, few are on this list of new invitees. What gives? I am sure the same holds for the other categories, but those are names I don't know or recognize as easily. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is explained above. Imagine applying to a college that only accepts high school graduates. If you graduated from high school, the admissions office considers your application using various unpublished criteria (possibly including "old boy network") and says yes or no. If you never graduated from high school or passed an equivalency test, the college won't even think about admitting you. But even if you graduated, a selective college might only accept 5% of eligible applicants. You are not guaranteed anything.
In the case of AMPAS, the "eligibility" conferred by winning or being nominated for an Oscar, or sponsored by two members of a branch, is analogous to graduating from high school. It means your application will be considered, but it doesn't mean that you will necessarily be accepted. The Oscar voters are like your high school, but the "admissions office" is the board of governors.
The 322 invitees this year is in fact an unusually high number: it's typically 100 or even fewer. The high number of invitees, and the relatively high demographic diversity within that group, is the result of AMPAS taking heat for being a self-selecting elitist club of old white guys. So they decided to do something about it and invite more people from a broader cross-section of the industry this year. Is this still confusing? 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's still confusing. I "get" the whole analogy: a high school graduate seeking admission to college is analogous to the Oscar winner who seeks membership in AMPAS. (Actually, vice-versa: the Oscar winner is analogous to the high school graduate.) A lot of people want to get in, but only a select few will be able to get it. I get that part of it. What my original question was getting at was: do they use simply subjective criteria? Or are there any objective criteria? If they use merely subjective criteria, then the whole thing is quite arbitrary. I suspect they don't want that (i.e., you, as an Oscar winner, have merely a random chance of being admitted into AMPAS). If two people win a Best Actor Oscar, why would one be admitted to AMPAS and another be denied? Seems very arbitrary and random. Is the whole thing simply a popularity contest? Hollywood politics? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently something like that, it is a secretive organization (there's not even a published list of members) and as mentioned above, it's been accused of being an old boy network. This year's large incoming group really does seem to have been a response to that criticism, from what I've been reading. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a further answer, AMPAS is basically a trade association, and as such it picks members who it thinks are likely to advance the association's interests. This led to inbreeding which the association was smart enough to recognize as counterproductive. The large number of non-US invitees in the current list would seem to indicate someone figured out that there is a film industry in places outside Hollywood. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're an old white man, your chances are still better than a young black woman's, but young black women stand a better chance than ever next time, if the Academy truly wants to appear to shake this reputation. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

need a race name/specie name for my book

ok so i'm writing a book and i'm stuck.i need a fictional race name that fits with an anthropomorphic wolf with yellow stripes/markings.this book is about war so no friendly race names please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalanceKeeper (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional species and races and Category:Fictional warrior races might be a useful starting point. ("Species" singular, incidentally). I would recommend at least one apostrophe and a high consonant/vowel ratio. Tevildo (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he's got yellow stripes, maybe "Chicken Wolf"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me - what are those things that advertise Anchor cheese supposed to be? Bees? Apes? Cows or mice, one could understand, but... Tevildo (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're 'Hugglers' says this advertising blah. Nanonic (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something related to Lupus/Lupine such as Lupic/Lupii/Lupia? Nanonic (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or going the other way - Canidae, Aureus (from Golden/Yellow), Cakalli (Albanian for Golden Jackal). Nanonic (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using something based on Lupus would have the advantage of easy derogatory nicknames: "Loops" (as in Fruit Loops) or "Loopies". Canidians? Nah, too friendly and apologetic. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphic wolves? How about "Lawrtals" or "Lartals" after Lawrence Talbot. Heh. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Maybe something referencing the Thylacine (aka Tasmanian Tiger or Tasmanian Wolf). "The Thylacoid Empire - putting the Mars in Marsupial"

2) Its your call, but just because the book is about war needn't mean that the race has to have a warlike name. Presumably they don't spend all their time fighting. (And if they do, maybe they get a ephemistic name, like The Kindley Ones. Iapetus (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

another AMPAS membership question (actually two)

The 322-invitee list linked above mentions that 7 of the invitees were invited by more than one AMPAS branch, and have to choose which branch they want to join. How does that happen? Do people working in multiple fields apply for the branch they really want, plus one or more "backups"? Are some branch memberships more valuable or interesting than others? Do you get to go to different parties or get other benefits depending on which branch you're in, or is it just a matter of which Oscars you get to vote on? If someone got multiple invitations, does it become public later which one they accepted? If it matters, I'm thinking of Mathilde Bonnefoy who got invited by the Documentary and Film Editor branches. I updated her article about this but it seemed awkward to have to write up the details. And I'm wondering which invitation she's more likely to take.

Also, is it possible to switch branches after you're already a member, or become a member of more than one branch? E.g. Clint Eastwood started out as an actor and later became a director. I don't know if he was actually ever an Academy member in either branch, but imagine that he was originally in the actor branch. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yet another question: do members have to pay dues, and how much are they? 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent questions. (To which I have no answers.) However, you stated: "Do people working in multiple fields apply for the branch they really want, plus one or more 'backups'?" That's a good question. But, I imagine that there are cases where a person does not affirmatively apply at all, but simply gets invited. So, perhaps two branches (or more) extend an invitation to the person, and the person never applied at all to begin with. Maybe that's possible? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression from reading that you have to actually apply. Bonnefoy has never been nominated for an editing Oscar, so she would have had to round up two sponsors from the editing branch, which I suspect is less close-knit than the documentary branch. And I suspect that the editing branch is the one she really wanted, since she's worked on a lot of fiction films but has only been involved with a couple documentaries that I know of. One of them (Citizenfour, which won the documentary Oscar) was very significant but the other (the Invisibles segment) sounds sort of obscure. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walkabout

What film stock was Walkabout shot on? The colours are beautiful. DuncanHill (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to IMDb, Eastmancolor. According to List of motion picture film stocks, the only Eastmancolor stock in use in 1971 was 5385/7385. However, this is a deduction based on unreliable data, not a definitive answer. Tevildo (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, it's just finished (I was watching it on telly) and the credits said Eastmancolor. Roeg is a master of colour of course, but there is something about the colour in some films from the late 60s, early 70s which I find particularly evocative. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a follow up question - who speaks the lines from A Shropshire Lad at the end? DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, to which I don't have an answer. Various sources refer to the quote, but without attempting to identify the narrator. I listened to the ending on youtube but couldn't pin the voice down. I'd say it was an "educated" Australian voice, probably a professional actor. Best I can do. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for trying. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't recognise it either. As Jack says, "educated" Australian voice (or possible a New Zealand one, for that matter). but other than that, I couldn't place it. Worth it to watch the, erm, scenery in that scene though :) Grutness...wha? 13:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]