Entertainment desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 26 >

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.

November 25

Identifying a song?

Reggae-ish song in A flat. Chorus begins with "All right." Heard it many times. What song is it? Theskinnytypist (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three Little Birds? Almost every reggae-ish song has "all right" or "alright" in it, but that's a very popular one. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was "Alright alright alright" by Mungo Jerry. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

spin-off from Spin-off

how much common is spin-off from spin-off|?--79.18.193.173 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a bit on how you want to categorize things. Have a look at List_of_television_spin-offs. For example Animaniacs had the spin off Pinky and the Brain. Is Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain a spin-off of Pinky and the Brain, making it a spin-off of a spin-off, or is it just a different spin-off of Animaniacs? I'm sure both answers can be defended. Some of the spin-offs of Happy Days could also be considered second- or third-level spin-offs. You'll probably also like the coverage at TVtropes [1]. Not the same thing, but this question also reminded me of The_Tommy_Westphall_Universe_Hypothesis ([2], [3]), wherein many many TV shows are linked by in-universe character crossovers, putting everything taking place in shows like X-files and Law & Order inside one autistic kid's dream. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain is a spin-off of Tiny Toon Adventures, which is itself a spin-off of Looney tunes. So that show is a second order spin-off in two different ways. If you go into the source code for our article searching for '**' will show you the second order spinoffs, and '***' the third orders, etc. Using that method, I see that Bret_Michaels:_Life_as_I_Know_It can be considered a ninth-level spin-off of The Surreal Life, but for me personally, the notion of spin-off is very different in reality TV compared to regular shows with writers. Sabrina's Secret Life is a 6th level spin-off of The Archie Comedy Hour, making it one of the highest level "real" shows I can see. Anyway, interesting stuff, maybe someone could start a List of second-order television spin-offs by scraping the general list. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that All in the Family had at least one grandchild. Did Rhoda (spun from Mary Tyler Moore) have a spinoff? —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I don't think there were any spin-offs from Spin City. Spin City itself could have been considered a spin-off, if Michael J. Fox's character had retained the name Alex P. Keaton, from Family Ties. But, despite the similarity in the characters, they changed the name. StuRat (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Tom and Jerry and Tom and Jerry

The characters Tom and Jerry were named, as we read in the article, in the following way: "Hanna and Barbera held an intra-studio contest to give the pair a new name by drawing suggested names out of a hat; animator John Carr won $50 with his suggestion of Tom and Jerry."; while Joseph Barbera, according to Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren), "began his career as an animator and storyman on this series. In 1940, Barbera co-created with William Hanna another duo of cartoon characters using the same names: a cat and mouse named Tom and Jerry." So... one of the two creators of this series started his career with a working on series of the same name, and that's a sheer coincidence? Has John Carr ever been asked for the reasons motivating his suggestion - maybe the older series played a role? --KnightMove (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were also "Tom and Jerry" cartoons in 1931-1932, but not about a cat and a mouse. They were quite risque since they were before the film decency code. Edison (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the same (old) Tom and Jerry from the question. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It is odd that someone could create a 1940 cartoon series with the same name as a copyrighted 1932 cartoon series. Did they buy rights to the name? Edison (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a trademark issue, not copyright. Applying today's law to yesteryear (doesn't always work) and presuming the Van Beuren bothered to register "Tom and Jerry", they'd have to specify a purpose. Perhaps "cartoon film" was too broad, and it only extended to "Mutt and Jeff-style cartoon films". Perhaps the trademark did cover all cartoons, but Van Beuren figured he couldn't prove damages, or only enough to not cover legal costs. Remember, there was no home video nor Teletoon Retro for an infringement to eat into yet. Old films were generally just replaced by new films, inherently making the new studios richer than the old ones, and harder to fight in court. Ub Iwerks is sort of to trademarks as Nikolai Tesla was to patents.

Or perhaps Joseph Barbera (or one of his "associates") simply threatened to bury Van Beuren (one way or another) if he didn't play ball. That's how a lot of the entertainment industry has always worked (allegedly). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bit about the various problems in protecting a film title with American trademark or copyright law. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The initial version of the character Foxy (Merrie Melodies) was almost a direct ripoff of Mickey Mouse as he looked at the time. Copyright restrictions could be a bit blurry in those days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For good classic thievery, check out The Karnival Kid, then watch Circus (in that article's Reference section). Or this totally generic mouse. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon and Garfunkel also went by the name "Tom and Jerry" early on. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paedophilia

I read an article yesterday that apparently, Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a disorder. Are there any references here to assert this conclusion. I must say, I was alarmed and disturbed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.252.156.247 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't whether any sexual attraction qualifies as a "disorder", no matter how bizarre, like beastiality, just a matter of opinion ? I'm sure we can find authoritative opinions from reputed organizations, but that's still just opinion. (In an attempt at a neutral, objective standard, you could call any sexual attraction that can't lead to reproduction a "disorder", but then homosexuality, attraction to post-menopausal women, etc., would be so classified, and attraction to teens below the age of consent would not be. Also, non-reproductive sex seems to serve a social purpose, notably in bonobos.) StuRat (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not an entertainment question, but ho hum...

For the purposes of this post I use the term "paedophile" to be one who is attracted to children, and "paedophiliac" as one who acts on that attraction.

To answer your question, I think it's both really. It's certainly not what society considers to be acceptable behaviour. Although there's some debate over it, it is generally considered that you cannot change your sexual orientation. By the same manner, you can't change whether you're a paedophile (although one can obviously choose whether to be a paedophiliac). I don't think anyone can change what arouses us, and let's face it, we all have things we'd rather not be aroused by. Quite what causes it I don't know, but I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to say.

Again, I would like to state that there is a difference between feeling an attraction to something and actually acting on those desires. I do know people who are or have been attracted to children in the past, and if such things weren't somewhere in our psyche there'd be no need for all the "slutty schoolgirl" porn. Those who abuse children rightly deserve our condemnation; but they, and those who merely feel the attraction, also deserve our help. It must be hell to feel those things, and very isolating, because most other people won't see any difference between the desire and the act. Admitting you feel such things is a one way ticket to social isolation, and that discourages people actually getting counselling for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think of "deviant" behaviors as like being an alcoholic: There's no cure. The only "treatment" is abstinence. That's why registered sex offenders are required to stay away from children, just like alcoholics have to stay away from booze. The difference is that the bottle is just an object, while a child is a human and has to be protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholics manage to do quite a bit of damage, such as wife beating and driving drunk and killing people. StuRat (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Some alcoholics. And some non-alcoholics. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

No doubt. In fact, StuRat's observation points to a major factor in the (failed) attempt at Prohibition in America. But it's the booze that they're addicted to, and the other stuff are consequences of that addiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt to objectively classify paraphilias as a "disorder" (or not) might be to ask the individual if their paraphilia causes a major disruption in their life. However, note that the answer is likely to be highly culturally dependent, as men who had sex with young boys in ancient Greece would answer no, because this was culturally accepted there. So then, what is classified as a "disorder" in our society would be normal for them. See cultural relativism. StuRat (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that pedophilia (or bestiality, or whatever) is a sexual orientation is one frequently trumpeted by certain homophobic factions who want to paint same-sex relationships as being as horrible/unnatural/ungodly/etc. as baby-raping and animal abuse. It's a form of slippery slope edging into association fallacy where it is hoped that readers will vote against same-sex marriage rights due to fear that this will eventually lead to people marrying their cat or something. As others have mentioned, the very term "orientation" can be problematic. Is being attracted to Asian females an orientation distinct from attraction to females in general? I don't think most people would use the term that way, but YMMV. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that they do say such things, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're entirely wrong. There's no right way to describe such things, and unfortunately people have a tendency to focus on the words you use rather than what you mean by it. Sexual desires are, for most people, innate. They don't choose what attracts them any more than you do. Perhaps they find it's asian women that they like, perhaps it's people being hit with custard pies. Some things they might be happy about, some they might not. I think it's best not to get too bogged down in the terminology, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that most paedophiles probably wish they weren't attracted to children. Similarly, many gay people may wish they didn't find their own gender arousing - life would generally be easier for most people if they were straight. However, that is not to say non-heteronormativity is the same as paedophilia or beastiality. There's a difference between sex between consenting adults and sex between an adult and someone who is incapable of consenting. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that in theory, it's just that nobody referred to bestiality as an "orientation" before the same-sex marriage issue came to the fore. It's not being referred to as such due to difficulties with nomenclature, it's a smear tactic, pure and simple. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]