Entertainment desk
< September 28	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

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.

September 29

Identify music video

Hello.

I'm trying to track down a music video from the late nineties. I don't know the group name or the title of the song. All I can remember is that it involves people dancing in a basement, a couple of rottweilers barking and mabye cops? Also, the genre is R&B, the group maybe British? It's all a blur though.

Thanks for any help.89.137.186.211 (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have classed it as R&B, but it does bring to mind Setting Sun from The Chemical Brothers. The video did have policemen and rottweilers, and dancing, albeit at a late-night outdoor rave rather than a basement, but looking at the video again, it does look a bit like a basement. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not Setting Sun. But since you brought up Chemical Brothers, the overall tone of the clip was more akin to Block Rockin' Beats (or Blue Boy's Remember Me): dark, at night, indoors etc.46.97.68.150 (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, found it. It's Freak Me by Another Level. Was in my mind for years.46.97.68.150 (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, dangers of late-night editing:) Was thinking as I hit the sack that chances are that Setting Sun was too recognizable and you wouldn't have said R'n'B for it. Glad you found the right one. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close the door !

A pet peeve of mine is that in many TV shows and movies I've seen, somebody opens a house door, walks inside, and doesn't bother closing it. There's no good reason why it would have been left open. Why does this happen ? Is the "close door" instruction not included in the script ? Is that because it would distract from whatever else is happening ? Is anybody actually in charge of ensuring that doors are closed, similar to a "script continuity" position ? StuRat (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did not find this among TV Tropes' door tropes. So, that leaves us with two possibilities: Either I didn't spot it. Or you must now register there as a contributor and fight for it (or it's listed elsewhere, or it's not a trope at all, and you lose :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 23:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where the action is all about someone "bursting in", or turning up unexpectedly, or somehow entering the scene in a significant way, it's their sudden arrival that's the important thing. They can't walk through walls, so they have to open the door; but once they've arrived, the action moves on immediately. The purpose of their presence is the next thing the audience wants to know. They don't want to see actors engaging in mundane things like closing doors or windows, going to the toilet, cooking meals, paying bills, or waiting for stuff to happen, such as slow internet connections; divorces becoming final; DNA test results (which may take weeks or months in RL but come back the same day in the movies), and so on. That's why people attending court always seem to be able to drive right up to the very front entrance without any traffic, just leave their car there without worrying about a parking meter or No Parking signs, and bound up the steps; whereas in real life, there wouldn't be parking available for maybe some blocks away from the courthouse, and they might have to drive around a few levels before they find a park, then get out and walk however far it is to the courthouse. All that actual reality simply wouldn't work in a film or TV show.

In some cases, the person coming in to the house or room carefully closes the door behind them because it's an important part of the plot that they do that (e.g. they don't want anyone outside to know they're there, because they're doing something sneaky; or they're having a conversation that must remain very private). But where it's not important, then ... it's not important. If you watch programs with an eye to how closely they match reality, I'm afraid you're bound to be perpetually disappointed. And paradoxically-named "reality tv" is the most absurdly unrealistic of all. People watch this stuff precisely because it's not the same as their humdrum lives; it's an escape from reality. There's no invisible orchestra following us around and punctuating our daily lives with a lush music score, so why should there be one in tv/film? Our lives aren't conducted for only an hour a day between 5 and 6 pm, so why should a TV show be like that? These sorts of questions all miss the point, Stu. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should add that we can then see the door left open in the rest of the scene, which is why it's so annoying. I wouldn't mind so much if they were shown opening the door, then they were inside with the door closed. BTW, is "find a park" Aussiespeak for "find a parking space" ? StuRat (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

If they clearly left the door open when they came in, but it was a short time later shown closed although there was nobody else there who closed it, wouldn't that strike you as odd? Unless the plot called for an unseen actor doing spooky things, and the closing of door itself was a plot point, that would be a glaring continuity error, as serious as entering the room wearing a suit but in the next shot wearing pyjamas or something. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect them to show every trivial event happen on screen. I would just assume there was 30 seconds edited out, where they closed the door. On the other hand, a door just hanging open during the entire scene, for no reason, is glaring. One of the characters might just as well have forgotten to put his pants on that day. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You assume that other people are bothered by this. The fallacy you face is that your unique and personal experience is universal. The evidence that it is not universal, and is instead peculiar to you is that the thing that bothers you continues regardless of your personal discomfort. In other words, if being bothered by sitcom characters not closing doors was significant enough to prevent viewers from watching commercials during sitcoms, then the sitcom showrunners would insure that it didn't happen, since viewers would turn away in droves because open doors would bother them, and ratings would plummet, and only shows which deliberately closed doors would remain on the air to collect advertising dollars from viewers who watched commercials. Because shows that don't bother closing the door persist despite your singular, personal discomfort at such an occurance, can ONLY mean that the discomfort you feel is not a human universal, but a peculiarity to yourself. That means, there is no reliable, referenceable answer to your query, because it is not a human universal, but a singular, unique personality trait to yourself, and thus no one actually notices, much less cares, to write about the phenomenon. For that very reason, your question of "why do sitcoms do <whatever> is wholly unanswerable, except to state that <whatever> is inconsequential for anyone not you enjoying the sitcom, and that's all that needs to be said. --Jayron 32 06:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a scene early in Bull Durham, when Crash and Nuke walk outside to have a "discussion". The door, which has a glass pane, is left open. Crash challenges Nuke to hit him in the chest with his fastball. Nuke fires the ball, misses Crash, and the ball shatters the now-closed door. Soon after, they go back inside - and the door is open again. Maybe someone closed and then opened the door at opportune times, but we didn't see it on film. But it served the plot. Also, open doors are often a plot device, as it allows an eavesdropper to hear a conversation, or at least part of one, from which the snoop might or might not draw the right conclusions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A door that was left open being now closed or vice-versa falls into the category of continuity errors, and there are websites that tracks those. A door being left open for no apparent reason to enable eavesdropping is just poor writing, in the same category as movies or TV shows which require lots of coincidences to work (like MacGyver always happening to have just what he needs, handy, at all times). StuRat (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"would insure that it didn't happen" ? Maybe they would ensure that it didn't happen, but I find it unlikely they would take out an insurance policy to cover the case where it happens. :-) (And yes, I do realize "insure" is sometimes used to mean "ensure" in the US.)

I made no claim it was a universal annoyance. And the question of whether or not anyone has the responsibility to check that things like "close the door" are added to scripts is certainly answerable; whether or not you can answer is another Q entirely. Also, while I doubt that the door issue alone turns off viewers entirely, it likely adds to the perception of "low production quality", which can turn people off. But, the Nielsen ratings aren't likely to tell them that, so they may be unaware of the issue.

Also, TV and movies aren't solely about making money. Some do still view them as artistic endeavors and attempt to make the highest quality product they can, whether or not that affects the bottom line (probably more true of foreign and independent productions). StuRat (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it mildly annoying, but not as odd as actors not saying goodbye before hanging up the phone. Or any chitchat at all. Sometimes not even a hello at the start - just exposition. I understand the need to trim out extraneous stuff (like closing doors), but it becomes jarring to see actors behave so differently from real people. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the approach they took on Parker Lewis Can't Lose. Say Parker walked from his class to his locker and then had a conversation. They would show the walk, but put it in fast motion, as nothing eventful happened along the way. StuRat (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your left-brainedness is showing, Stu. Don't worry, I can empathise. But not to that degree. Suddenly speeding up something unnaturally just to make it occupy a shorter time on the film, rather than removing it entirely, is loopy. Imagine the makers taking that approach with Gone With the Wind or War and Peace. It would be 98% people zipping around doing stuff that was irrelevant to the main story, which the makers didn't really want you to see anyway.

Imagine telling a joke with that approach: Three men entered a bar in downtown Madrid, the capital of Spain, the southernmost country of Europe, which has returned to a system of monarchy after years of civil war and dictatorship. First the Englishman, who held the door open for the Frenchman, who entered but just let the door close in the face of the Russian, who then had to open the door himself and then come in. They walked down the small flight of stairs, covered in carpet of a green-brown colour with strange yellow and violet flecks, which helped to disguise dirt but left a lurid effect. They approached the long wooden bar, made of mahogany from timbers felled in Corsica, the birthplace of Napoleon, who once invaded Spain. The bar was being attended by three barpersons, 2 men and a woman, although the latter could easily have been a female impersonator, it's so hard to tell these days. They went over to the second man, second from their left that is, but first from the perspective of the barpersons. They said "Hi" (in Spanish of course, but I'm rendering their speech in English because this is an English-language joke). He said "Hello, what can I do you for?", smiling wryly at his mini-joke (which was also spoken in Spanish; see previous explanation). Then, before any of the men had a chance to place their orders, the barman noticed the three of them - of different nationalities, not that he knew that, or cared, but he did notice none of them looked typically Spanish, as he might normally have expected in his place that was not often patronised by tourists - all had monkeys sitting on their shoulders, and he asked "What are those monkeys doing on your shoulders?".... And so on.

Your audience is now fast asleep or has drifted away. A competent story teller gets to the point, omitting all irrelevant detail, giving only such detail as has a place or a point in the story; Three men entered a bar. The barman noticed they all had monkeys sitting on their shoulders and asked why .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what is really annoying? Someone who starts a joke and doesn't deliver the punchline. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a challenge: how to end a joke that starts with "Three men entered a bar in downtown Madrid" ? Something along the lines of their English speaking bartender always bringing them additional beers whenever they said Moor ? Well, let's skip the Spanish angle and just try a generic 3 men in a bar joke: "One was a regular and his two friends were new to the bar. The regular said 'Be sure to bring my beer in a clean glass !'. His friends thought him a bit rude, until the bartender returned and asked 'Which of you wanted the clean glass ?'". StuRat (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]