Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2007 June 29

= June 29 =

More benefit concerts
Why isn't there any mentions of any benefit concert for the Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina? Will there also be a mention of the Concert for Diana? I hope one of these days someone will get to work on those types of things.72.229.130.76 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Any mention where? Here on Wikipedia?  There was a lot of talk about the Hurricane Katrina concert because Kanye West used it to proclaim that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." (and to make sure all the news organizations would be mentioning the name "Kanye West"). -- Kainaw (what?) 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

American male actors with hyphenated names
Hi Is there anywere I can find a list of American male actors with hyphenated names alive today. Thanks Wendy, NSW, Australia


 * Category:American actors will really help you out in this case. --JDitto 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Serial Experiments Lain as inspiration for the Matrix Trilogy?
Is it known whether Serial Experiments Lain was one of the animés that provided inspiration for the Matrix Trilogy? Neon Merlin  05:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's possible, although given that Lain was released in Japan in September 1998, and The Matrix in March 1999, it would be extremely unlikely that much influence could carry over (especially given how long it takes for the English language version of an anime to get released). It could have affected the later two movies, though. Confusing Manifestation 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

what film is this?
i saw this film as a kid it was about this farm boy who bought 2 robots and and some old guy helped him escape his planet there was some sort of star war going on and and this guy and a big bear helped them rescue a princess i dont know who was in it but i remember it had a deaf star in it its good to know the director cud over look their disabilty can anybody tell me wot movie it is?


 * I'm pretty sure you are referring to Gigli. 194.168.231.2 09:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Wes


 * He said he saw it "as a kid". Since Gigli came out in 2003 and we can assume "as a kid" means 5-7 years old, that would make him currently 9-11.  Most 9-11 year olds are too mature for a question of such idiotic nature.  It takes an onslaught of hormones to turn the brain into pathetic mush.  So, he is more likely 13-15, meaning the movie came out in 1999.  Therefore, I believe it must have been Forces of Nature. -- Kainaw (what?) 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I think that was a tad harsh. - Akamad 13:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't. It was a stupid question, not remotely funny except (presumably) to the OP. --Richardrj talkemail 13:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it was. Implying that the kid actually watched Forces of Nature was harsh. Perhaps he saw Wild Wild West. -- Kainaw (what?) 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on, people, there was no bear in Forces of Nature, Gigli or Wild Wild West. It had to be Winnie the Pooh!  Corvus cornix 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? He is obviously giving an accurate description of an episode of Sienfeld--GTPoompt (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're asking the wrong questions...it's not about what the OP said, it's about what he didn't say. You've got to read between the lines. 24.250.33.41 00:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle Toads: The Movie. 'nuff said --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The movie was most certainly Star Wars: A New Hope. Farm Boy who bought two robots with an old man and a 'deaf star'?

Films: Widescreen versus Standard Formats
Here is something that I have wondered about for years, so I will ask here. When theatrical films starting coming out in DVD and VHS formats for home viewing on TV, some films came in standard format and some came in widescreen format. Widescreen, I believe, "mimics" on your television screen exactly what you would see on the theatre screen. Since TV screens and movie theatre screens have different dimensions, the widescreen format (on TV) will have the black (empty) rectangular spaces (as empty filler) on the top and bottom of the TV screen. In standard format, the entire TV screen is utilized for viewing, and there is no empty black filler space on the top and bottom of the TV screen. So, here are some questions. (A) When they create the standard format, do they simply "chop off" a little film on the left side and "chop off" a little film on the right side, so that you are viewing the "middle chunk" (what's left over after the chopping) of the widescreen version? Or is there a more complicated way to turn the widescreen version film into standard format? And ... (B) I thought that I remembered producers/directors/etc. seeing this as a controversial topic and objecting to it, for some reason. What exactly would be the controversy and their objections? And ... (C) Isn't some viewing material "lost" when a wide version film is chopped up into a smaller viewing version? And might not some of that "chopped off" material (say, on the fringes of the left side and right side) be important / vital / integral to the film / plot / story line / etc.? Here is an example to illustrate my question. Say, the main action of the film has a main character (a thief) in the foreground stealing a diamond from a jewelry store display counter. In the far background, to the far left, is another character (a policeman) sneaking in the room and pointing a gun at the main character, the thief. If they "chopped off" the left section of that film, the viewer would lose the essence of that entire scene. So, in a scene like that, would they leave the left side intact and just chop off twice the amount on the right side? What if "important stuff" was happening on the right side, also? Is each and every scene considered before the film is chopped up? Or do they straight-across-the-board chop on the left, chop on the right ... and whatever is left over is what's left over to view? Thanks for any insight. (JosephASpadaro 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Yes, this can be a problem. See Pan and scan.  Corvus cornix 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie quote
I remember seeing a movie, it had a quote resembling "they're either dead, dying, or crying for their mum" but I doubt it is the original syntax. Any ideas ? Matt714 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The title of Silence of the Lambs comes from a similar quote within the film. Is that it? slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Academy Awards
Does anyone know, precisely, what the distinction is between Best Actor (or Actress) and Best Supporting Actor (or Actress)? In other words, does AMPAS have clearly defined and delineated distinctions between the two? Or does the film industry itself have some accepted standard? I would like to know what makes a role considered "leading" versus "supporting". Also: say that there is a film with an ensemble cast of, say, 10 actors (equal screen time, equal importance and relevance to the film, equal number of lines, equal billing, etc.). Would all 10 be considered leading roles? Or would all 10 be considered supporting roles? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * It depends on what the studio decides when selecting people to nominate for the awards. This came up when Samuel L. Jackson was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in Pulp Fiction even though he was clearly a main actor, not a supporting actor. -- Kainaw (what?) 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean? Are you saying that the studio can simply arbitrarily call a performance "leading" or "supporting" without any restraint at all?  And the Academy "allows" this?  (JosephASpadaro 22:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Correct. You must note that just randomly nominating people won't make them a "nominee" for the award.  The studio picks movies, people, music, and all that and sends it to the Academy.  Then, the Academy decides on the official nominees.  Then, all the members of the Academy are allowed to vote.  Finally, the winners of each category are announced.  So, if a studio picks a guy with a brief cameo to be "Best Actor in a Leading Role", the Academy will simply skip over that and choose someone else to be an official nominee. -- Kainaw (what?) 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, wait a minute. That contradicts what you said in your first reply.  You said (in your second reply) that the Academy will not allow a small role to be nominated for a leading award.  But above (in your first reply), you said that the Academy did allow the opposite (i.e., a clearly leading role to be nominated as a supporting role).  So, I am confused.  And, I guess -- ultimately, are there any "hard and fast" guidelines that distinguishes leads from supports?  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I think Kainaw meant that there is no practical chance of someone in a small part winning enough votes in the nominating process to get a nomination as if it was a leading role. But there is no actual rule.  See the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor article. --Anonymous, June 30, 2007, 01:21 (UTC).


 * Legend has it that Bettie Davis was angry when Anne Baxter decided to compete in the Best Actress category, rather than Supporting Actress. Supposedly they ended up splitting the All About Eve vote and both lost. Clarityfiend 01:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, basically ... this is a "gray area"? ... and the studios and the Academy can do whatever they please? (JosephASpadaro 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Correct. That is exactly what I said.  The studios can even submit to the Academy an actor who didn't even appear in the film.  Of course, we know the Academy won't accept the submission - not because of a rule against it, but because they don't think he will have any shot of winning.  They take all the submissions and put in who they think will get the most votes.  Of course, there is speculation that they also add in certain people just to get higher ratings on Oscar night - knowing that they will lose.  Sometimes it can backfire (or so urban legend has it). -- Kainaw (what?) 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Timothy Hutton is the main actor in Ordinary People, but because he was young and unknown, he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Corvus cornix 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Brady Bunch
Are there any Brady Bunch fans out there? I have two questions. (1) Are there any actors or actresses who are now "famous" (or well-known or with recognizable names) who auditioned for, but did not receive, a Brady role? I am interested in the child roles, but adult roles are fine, also. (2) It is common knowledge that the casting department cast two sets of children. The first set had blonde girls and brunette boys. The second set had blonde boys and brunette girls. The final casting choices for the two parental roles would subsequently dictate which set of child actors to ultimately cast. On a TV special, I saw a publicity photo of the "second set" of child actors (the ones who eventually were not cast in the roles). I have looked all over the internet to see that (or other) photos again, but have had no luck. Can anyone direct me to a source that has photos of the "second set" of (uncast) child actors? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
 * This says that Jeremy Gelbwaks of The Partridge Family tried out for the Brady Bunch, but gives no proof. It also says Michael Lookinland tried out for The Partridge Family. Corvus cornix 19:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)