Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2007 July 2

= July 2 =

Where is the spoon?
What is the origin of the "There is no spoon" quote from the Matrix movies, and what does it mean? The article 'There is no spoon' just redirects to 'the Matrix'. 71.112.144.246 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the movie? There is a scene where a kid bends a spoon with his mind.  He explains that the trick is realizing that there is no spoon - so there is nothing to bend.  As for an origin, it is very loosely based on Taoism and Buddhism. -- Kainaw (what?) 02:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How does one edit a page and give sources? I tried to edit Steve Berra's page and it does not look like the other reference and I don't know how to put it on the statement either.


 * Got it, thanks. I have seen the movie, but it was a long, long time ago and I didn't remember the scene with the spoon.  All my nerdy friends, though, seem fond of saying "there is no spoon" at odd times, or when something vaguely surreal happens.  71.112.123.162 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which means that they don't get the meaning of the phrase either. It isn't equivalent to "oh my, that was surreal" or "how weird was that."  It is equivalent to "the solution to your problem is to realize that your problem doesn't exist."  So, it would be proper to use it in a situation such as trying to start a car with a flooded engine - insinuating that the solution is to realize that there is no car. -- Kainaw (what?) 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nothing to do with Taoism or Buddhism. It's because the spoon exists solely within the virtual construct of the Matrix, and does not exist in reality, despite how real it appears to be.  Neo has to realise this, not just as an abstract piece of knowledge but wholeheartedly, before he is able to bend the "physical laws" within the Matrix (and do all the sweet things like dodge bullets and fly).  Neil   ╦  14:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has everything to do with Buddhism, and it's the very illustration of the key concept of pratītyasamutpāda. The realization of this concept was part of Buddha's enlightenment, in the same way that Neo has to realize the concept to become enlightened.  The parallels are intentional and direct.  The fact that the "Spoon Boy" was dressed as a Buddhist monk was a big hint. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Academy Awards
Does anyone know if a film can be eligible for Academy Awards in more than one year? Or is eligibility strictly limited to the first year of a film's release? Example: The film Grease was released in 1978. It was subsequently re-released in 1998, for its 20th anniversary. Clearly, it was eligible for the 1978 Academy Awards. Would it also be eligible for the 1998 Academy Awards? If the answer is "no, a re-release does not trigger a second eligibility" ... here is a follow up question. If, in the re-release, the studio/producers/directors changed the original film (e.g., they added new footage/scenes or they deleted old footage/scenes), wouldn't this technically be considered to be a "different" film than the original? And thus, technically, eligible for Academy Awards a second time, in the re-release year? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 05:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Here are the rules. According to rule 3, paragraph 3.A: "the film may not be exhibited publicly in any other medium for a three-month period following the commencement of its initial theatrical engagement". Since most films are available on DVDs, I imagine a re-release would not qualify. Other than that, I couldn't find any particular reasons why re-releases cannot be eligible (mind you, I am not a lawyer). As to your second question, I would say that changing it does make it eligible. The main reason that re-releases are not seen in the awards are because they aren't usually marketed widely, which apparently is required (Rule 2): "advertised and exploited during its Los Angeles run in a manner considered normal and customary to the industry." - Akamad 12:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're looking at the right document (although not the current-year version), but the wrong paragraphs. The part that's directly relevant is paragraphs 2 and 3 of rule 3. To be eligible for the Oscars presented in 2006 for movies from 2005 (which is the year that this specific document is about), a movie not only had to have played in Los Angeles starting in 2005, but could not have been releaed either inside or outside the US before January 1, 2004. 3A is just an additional requirement.


 * Note that this was not always the rule; Limelight (1952) was not originally released in the US, and won an Oscar for Charlie Chaplin 20 years later when it was. According to the article on that film, the rule was then changed to prevent this from happening again.  --Anonymous, July 3, 2007, 20:14 (UTC).


 * So, Anonymous ... you are saying that the 1998 re-release of Grease would not be eligible for Academy Awards under this Rule (above)? What about my second question ... if scenes were added to/deleted from the original Grease ... does that make the new edited version a completely "different film" for Academy rule purposes?  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Joseph, your style of responding to answers sometimes gives the impression that you're trying to have an argument, not to look for information. I have nothing to add to what has already been posted, and if I did, I would have posted it.  --Anonymous, July 4, 2007, 07:53 (UTC).


 * Oh, so sorry to have bothered you, Queen on High. Try assuming good faith.  Didn't realize that following up on a question was a crime.  Or that asking for clarification was a crime.  Thanks for the enlightenment.  (JosephASpadaro 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * An actual case of this might be with Apocalypse Now, originally released in 1979, and Apocalypse Now Redux from 2001. According to the article on the latter, "...Redux is usually considered by fans and critics (as well as director [Francis Ford] Coppola) as a completely new movie altogether." Now that brings up the question, does anyone know if Redux was considered eligible in 2001. (Obviously, we know it wasn't actually nominated.) — Michael J  01:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

French clown on PBS
I remember as a kid in the U.S. (early-to-mid 80s), I watched short segments on PBS featuring a French-speaking clown. The aim was to teach a bit of French vocabulary or grammar through the clown's misadventures. The clown wore frumply clothes, had black hair, and had white paint around his mouth. He was typically pretty sad, not a happy clown. Does anyone know the name of this character or of the program he appeared on? Does either have an article here at Wikipedia? Thanks for any help, — Brian ( talk ) 07:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Marc Favreau's Sol le cloun? --Duomillia 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * C'est ça! Merci beaucoup! — Brian ( talk ) 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the name of this popular rap song from the '90s?
-- = a short rest

A3 C4 D4 -- F4 E4

My mo-ney -- (rhymes with 'drop back')

I forget the rest, but I like the song. Anyone know what it is? --69.225.195.14 09:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Rollout" by Ludacris. Recury 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. --69.225.195.14 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan Media
I would like to know the following :

1. Top 20 TV channels in Pakistan 2. Top 20 Radio Stations in Pakistan


 * 'Top 20' in which category / categories? There is an a section within the Culture of Pakistan on popular media but the article does not appear to be of encyclopedic quality. Lanfear&#39;s Bane

Old computer game
Does anyone remember the name of that old computer game where you had to fill the space by partitioning off sections of the screen, while not getting hit be the bouncing balls?

Thanks! --John 18:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like qix. Friday (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ambrosia Software has a game called Barrack which, according to the article for the company, is based on Qix. Dismas |(talk) 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Jezzball. Recury 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Qix is pretty close, though not the actual one I played. The one I played was clearly a knock-off, but it's not listed there. Unlike qix the enemies are bouncing balls, but unlike jezzball you move the little guy to make lines, instead of using those rays. If anyone has any fiurther thoughts, that would be great, and thanks to those above! John. 18:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah ha! Xonixs! Thanks again for the help. John. 18:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of old games, Mom's old Mac Powerbook (circa 1993) came with a game called "Spin Doctor". There's a square array of pivots, and you're a bar spinning around one of them; hold a key and you drop the pivot and grab the next one you pass with your free end, and switch to spinning around that one. Here and there, between the pivots, are triggers that open or close doors and whatnot. I've never seen or heard a trace of that game since, and you can imagine that searching for "Spin Doctor" doesn't get me far! Does anyone know e.g. who published it? &mdash;Tamfang 04:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I googled spin+doctor+computer+game+fun and found it immediately. Here you go.  152.16.59.190 08:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am officially lame. &mdash;Tamfang 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)