Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 December 15

= December 15 =

Question about Terminators
Are Terminators supposed to be anatomically correct and fully functional? I've only recently started watching The Sarah Connor Chronicles and there has been a couple of scenes where the Terminatrix, Cameron (Terminator) has been dropping heavily suggestive hints to John Connor. Could a human actually 'do it' with a Terminator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.92.203 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being fiction, I suppose the writers could do whatever they wanted. If it made more people watch the show, the writers are bound to do anything they want...--Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The T-800 apparently looked anatomically impressive on the outside, judging from the lady bikers' expressions in Terminator 2. Otherwise I would have to agree with Jayron - if you can believe that a time-travelling robot can look like Cameron, why not believe that John can have sex with it? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been the subject of much debate on the forums and discussion boards, and while the writers of TTSCC have not confirmed either way, most of the evidence suggests she is anatomically correct. When Cameron approaches the guys in the pilot episode she is fully naked and if she wasn't anatomically correct their reactions would have been a lot different from what they were. Also, as Adam Bishop said above, in T2 it is conveyed to the viewer that Arnie's Terminator is all there by the expression on the waitress's face when she sees him naked; but whether he is "fully functional" is a different matter. Also remember that Terminators are not only designed for combat but also for long term infiltration, so being anatomically correct would greatly aid in posing as human. In the episode Vick's Chip they hack into a T-888's chip to learn about it's mission, and discover that he was in a relationship as part of his cover. It is heavily implied that he was fully functional and that he was able to pose as the husband of a woman who was believed to have contributed to Skynet. Additionally, if Skynet has gone to the trouble of creating Terminators which are specifically designed to be and act female (skin, hair, facial features, ect) then it would seem plausible that it went all the way in designing them. As for if they would actually "do it", it looks like a relationship is possible as they both have showed at some interest ("I'm good now, I don't wanna go! I'm sorry, that wasn't me, I'm fix now I ran a test! Everything's perfect you can trust me! I love you! I love you please, I love you John and you love me"). Also, they always give each other those looks and it seems as if Cameron is jealous of Riley. Even Sarah has noticed this, saying to Cameron "I don't like the way he responds to you". I suppose the only things standing in their way is the stigma of dating a robot (Futurama: "Don't date robots!"), Sarah Connor's obvious disapproval and the fact that Cameron is posing as John's sister so there is that eww factor from onlookers who are unaware of the real situation. SN0WKITT3N  12:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably. It'd be a good way to kill someone, lure them into sex and then kill them while they are...um...entranced.  Buffered Input Output 17:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that if a Terminator got that close to someone who it was supposed to kill, what would be purpose of having sex before it broke your neck? SN0WKITT3N  18:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the punters might want to see that? Because casual sex often equals death in this area of storytelling? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * From my occasional browsings of the TTSCC forums, it would seem that at least half the people that watch the show only watch it because they want to see a torrid John and Cameron romance. Or simply because they want to see John voiding Cameron's manufacturer's warranty (or whatever humorous euphemism for man/fem-bot sex you choose). The writers would annoy a heck of a lot of fans if they didn't write her as being 'anatomically correct and fully functional' - though I doubt we'll see them actually doing anything until the end of the series. Shows have a habit of going seriously downhill when the unresolved sexual tension is resolved. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the whole Cameron and John romance is extremely delicate and awkward. I wish she'd gone to the prom with Morris. SN0WKITT3N  18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

German language film: devotion
I am looking for information on agerman lnguage film called devotion. The film primarily stars 2 characters who have sex and continually play games with each other —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.19.237 (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An IMDB search on that title draws a blank, as does a search for possible German-language equivalents. Are you sure about that title, and do you have any more information about the film? --Richardrj talkemail 08:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Matthias Glasner's 2005 film Free Will ((Der freie Wille) seems much darker than your description. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Devot? The word is German BDSM slang for a submissive (German Wikipedia). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pride & Prejudice
Can someone please name all the actresses that appear in this poster of the 2005 film adaptation of Pride & Prejudice? David Pro (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * From left to right: Jena Malone, Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, Rosamund Pike, Talulah Riley (I think) ---Sluzzelin talk  15:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I dream of Keira, nightly. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Little too skinny, but she's all right.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

that was it thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.19.237 (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Chipmunks/Beatles sales records
In 1958 the Chipmunk Christmas Song (Christmas Don't be Late) was the #1 seller of all time, with 4.5 million records sold. I undrestand that the Beatles beat tehm out in about 1963. What Beatles song out-sold Christmas Don't be Late?12.31.231.168 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about sales in the USA or elsewhere? List of best-selling singles in the United States gives Hey Jude as the only Beatles track to sell more than 4 million, but it was released in 1968.  The list doesn't mention the Chipmunks, but their single may be too old.


 * List of best-selling singles worldwide gives The Chipmunk Song (Christmas Don't Be Late) at 5.5 million in 1958, and for the Beatles I Want to Hold Your Hand (1964) at 12 million and Can't Buy Me Love (1964) at 6 million; I Want To Hold Your Hand was released first, and so presumably would have outsold the Chipmunks first. However sales figures from that long ago are likely to be very inaccurate and to miss out sales in many markets. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Beecham Messiah (1927) and the BBC Choir and Symphony Orchestra
Hi, I recently acquired a copy of the 1993 Pearl re-mastering of Sir Thomas Beecham’s late 1927 recording of Handel’s Messiah (http://www.amazon.com/Handel-Messiah/dp/B000000WVM). According to the artist notes given by Pearl, the recording includes “The British Broadcasting Corporation Choir” and “Symphony Orchestra”. I took this attribution for granted; however, since then, I have learned by chance that the BBC Symphony Orchestra did not come into existence until 1930 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/orchestras/symphonyorchestra/about_us/history.shtml) (I am not sure about the ‘BBC Choir’ – but the Symphony Chorus apparently began in 1928 http://www.bbc.co.uk/orchestras/symphonyorchestra/symphonychorus/history.shtml). I have been looking online, but the only attributions I can find given of the orchestra and chorus used in the 1927 recording are those given by amazon and other music sites selling the Pearl transfer which follow the pearl issue by citing the BBC Choir/Chorus and SO.

What I would like to know, then, if anyone can tell me, is this: what orchestra and chorus are featured in the 1927 Beecham recording of the Messiah? Is it the BBC SO and Chorus (and if so, how? Were they, for example, a part-time organisation before 1930?)? Or is it a different set of musicians, e.g. the London Phil (who were Beecham’s orchestra at the time) or the LSO (with whom he performed Messiah the previous year)?

144.32.157.60 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Monica (Friends)
How did Monica lose SO MUCH weight? It doesn't mention on the article on Monica. Thanks :) 122.162.175.73 (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By taking off the fat suit. You do know it's a fictional show, and therefore any answer isn't going to help anyone else lose weight? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know that. I just think their must be some plausible explanation offered for such an extreme transformation. 122.162.175.73 (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the show it was a comment by Chandler calling her Ross's "fat sister" that finally gave her the resolve to lose weight. I would guess diet and exercise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the big deal with whistling in an elevator?
In the play, Death of a Salesman, they seem to make a big deal about not whistling in an elevator. What's the big deal? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever I hear a man whistling in the elevator, I'm afraid he's going to pee there. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Being a confined space, elevators by their nature cause all people to intrude on each other's personal space. People don't feel comfortable thinking about that, and so do their best to "ignore" the other people.  Whistling destroys the illusion that you are alone on the elevator, and therefore makes others uncomfortable... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Talking would also destroy that illusion, but there seems to be no general taboo on talking in an elevator, even if most people pretend there's nobody else there to talk to.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't that long ago that I saw a study that found people could tune out conversations between multiple people performed at half the volume of a single person talking on a phone. This leads me to believe that people may be able to tune out conversations when all people involved are in the elevator, but not when the person talking is on a phone. --  k a i n a w &trade; 23:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that social mores have changed dramatically between the time period in Death of a Salesman and today... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whistling (humming, singing, talking to yourself) in an elevator is noise for the sake of noise; it is intrusive and essentially dismissive of anyone else on the elevator. Talking to another person also on the elevator is somewhat less dismissive, as it includes at least the one other person, but it still creates an "us and them" in a very confined space. Taking a telephone call is in the same league. All of it is basically selfish behaviour and inconsiderate of others who are forced to share your space, voice and thoughts. Unless you know everyone on the elevator, you are best advised to keep your music and your thoughts to yourself. (How's that for a "bah! humbug" response?) ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna agree with Bielle on this; its a lot like talking to a guy at the next urinal. Do some people do it?  Yeah.  But should you.  Hell no... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that depends ... no, I'd better not go there. :) But seriously, would anyone already in a lift (so much shorter to write than elevator) object if the doors opened and in walked 2 or more people engaged in conversation, who continued to talk after the doors close again?  It certainly wouldn't bother me.  Two people who commenced a conversation after they were already inside might be a little different, but again, it wouldn't bother me as long as they spoke quietly and didn't overwhelm the whole carriage with their talk.  That in itself seems to be a growing problem these days, since the advent of mobiles, and we see all sorts of commentary and complaints about people who feel the need to include the whole world in their mobile conversations.  That can happen anywhere, and does, but I agree it's especially annoying in a confined space like a lift or a train.  By the way, has it become socially acceptable to rip their mobile from their hand, fling it to the ground, stomp it to smithereens, and shout in their face "SHUT THE F***K UP!!!!!" - and if not, when will that happy day arrive?  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (after ec) This discussion may be enlightening. Grutness...wha?  05:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding to Jack, I actually prefer two people engaged in their conversation to one or more silent companions in an elevator. The talkers make it easier for me not to "be there", while the confined intimacy of shared silence (occasionally broken by throat-clearing, gulping, and other bodily sounds) makes me feel more uncomfortable. Whenever possible, I take the stairs (stairwells often have great acoustics for whistling too). ---Sluzzelin talk  06:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I love whistling and whistle anywhere. And when I come across someone whistling in a shopping centre or street, I like to think there goes another whistler. We're a rare and uninhibited breed. On the question though, in Death of a Salesman ("Bob Harrison said you were tops, and then you go and do some damn fool thing like whistling whole songs in the elevator like a comedian") the drift is that it's déclassé or immature to whistle at work or in public, so it's a personal criticism. At this site newsroom people discss a supersition about whistling in their particular workplace. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whistling also mentions superstition about whistling indoors in certain Eastern European cultures. My host in Budapest was confronted by his 80-year old neighbour who wanted to know why the foolish stranger insisted on whistling in the stairwell. I've been more self-conscious about whistling ever since. While we're at it, another whistling phenomenon that has fascinated me since I can remember, is that it can be subconsciously contagious, like yawning. When you're whistling, often someone else nearby will start whistling their own unrelated tune, without noticing the clash of the melodies. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Mind boggling. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never known it to be contagious. But, my experience with it was a few years of constantly whistling the theme to the Smurfs while I was in the Marines - specifically to annoy everyone else.  Nobody else started whistling along with me.  I just remembered another note on whistling... The Smothers Brothers had a skit that talked about whistling the dirty words to songs as a kid because they weren't allowed to sing them.  So, if you hear some kid whistling a song, give him a good whack because he probably thinking of dirty words. --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the deal with whistling stems from the fact that, like with playing the violin, you're either good at it or horrible. When an "amateur" whistler starts hitting the upper registers you can get a fingernails on chalkboard sort of resonance happening. I have no problem with two people carrying their conversation on in an elevator (with me also on board), though I'd be annoyed by a whistler going on in a confined space; it's easy to get a feedback pattern in there with all those flat hard walls. It would be like someone singing to themselves in my immediate personal space: a strong "shut-out" signal combined with an auditory assault. Matt Deres (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see much online about this, but there's an old belief that whistling conjures up the Devil. Whistling was certainly associated with the Devil in some operas, notably Arrigo Boito's Mefistofele.  The article makes no mention of it, but at "Mefistofele has been thwarted; he disappears back into the ground as Faust dies", it perhaps should say that Mefistofele (the Devil) disappears while whistling.  Debussy started work on an opera The Devil in the Belfry based on Edgar Allan Poe's story, with the non-singing role of the Devil being played by a whistler, but died before it was finished.  Maybe any whistling indoors was considered bad luck, and was therefore relegated to outdoors.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may follow-up on my original question, why does Arthur Miller include this as part of the play? Whistling in an elevator (even if impolite) seems to me to be a pretty trivial matter. Is it possible that Miller is using this as a device to illustrate that Willy Loman and his sons are detached from reality by focusing on a trivial matter than say more valuable interview advice ? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you taking into account the vast social difference between the Lomans, their status and their era and 2008? People didn't have access to the internet and the reservoir of over-produced information necessary to confidently apply for jobs. They mainly relied on each other for help and support. The quality of that was determined by the people involved, social strata, interfamily relations and how in touch with reality anyone was. Miller is attacking the "American dream" along with the dreamers it seems. They are also attacking each other. Maybe there wouldn't be a play like that if Willy had simply said, Go to the local job centre and they'll get you organised, son. Not that families are free of personal criticism today, I'm just saying about the play, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I linked to an Web article because it was easiest for me. They had newspapers and magazines back then, did they not?  Yes, Miller is attacking the American dream but disconnection with reality is also a key theme.  Willy tells his wife that he took down his car window and then later states they haven't made cars like that in years.  In the restaurant scene, Willy has a flashback to when his son caught him having an affair and the waiter finds him babbling on the floor of the restroom floor.  Not to mention all the delusions where he has long conversations with his dead brother.  There's lots of common sense advice one can give someone about an interview without even needing to consult a newspaper or magazine.  Show up on time.  Give a firm handshake.  Sit up straight.  Be polite.  Instead, all Willy says is don't whistle in an elevator.  216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in Dysfunctional family. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)