Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 January 19

= January 19 =

Is Speeders staged?
Hi. I saw Speeders recently, and I think the show is staged. Some of these excuses are too ridiculous (like "my car doesn't like to go slow"). I tried googling it, but didn't get any good results. ♦Ace of Silver♦ 01:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's reality TV, emphasis on TV. But still, some of thoses responses may be true since 50% of all people are dumb. --Niyant (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine they don't have to try very hard to find ridiculous statements. Sit in on any court session and you're bound to hear some dumb excuses. Never underestimate stupidity.--SeizureDog (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ever know a cop, get invited to a party or some other social situation with them. Then sit down next to them for the rest of the night.  You're bound to hear some ludicrous story of the lack of intelligence of would-be criminals.   Dismas |(talk) 14:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Never seen the show, but I would collecting imagine dashboard cam footage is far cheaper than writing and staging phoney events. The proliferation of such shows probably comes from how inexpensive they are to produce. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wicker Man and Britt Ekland
I recently watched this on TV. But when I had previously seen it on TV years ago, I thought I remembered a scene where Britt Ekland appears nude in front of a school classroom. Did not see it this time. Have I just imagined the nude classroom scene? 80.0.111.83 (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in a class room, but in her bedroom banging on the walls to entice Edward Woodward I think.--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The school teacher was Diane Cilento I believe. She did not appear naked as far as I can remember--TreeSmiler (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ekland appeared topless in the bedroom scene, but she refused to appear fully naked, so a body double was used for the full length nude shots (which were just taken from behind). --Richardrj talkemail 06:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember the scene because it made me think that it must have been filmed without the schoolchildren or the nude Britt Ekland being in the room at the same time - a shot of Britt Ekland standing in front of the class, another shot turned 180 degrees of the schoolchildren - so they probably were not in the room at the same time despite apparant continuity in the film. The wikipedia article, as well as giving the same information as the comments above, says a lot of the original film has been edited away to make the shorter version usually seen. So on balance I think I did see it. It might have been some other woman apart from Ekland perhaps. 80.0.96.244 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

High score for "Space Invaders"?
I remember a number of years back, someone got the highest score possible on Pac-man, which i didn't know had an upper limit. My questino is, what aobut the other top video game from my youth, Space Invaders. Did it have a highest score possible? My thought is yes, because like Pac-Man, it would be on a system with limited memory; and, when I think about it, it does make sense that Pac-Man would have a limit. How many levels would it have?4.68.248.130 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine it would be 65,535, which is the highest possible 16 bit number. This is presuming Pac Man is based on a 16 bit system. TheGreatZorko (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: 3,333,360 is the highest possible score in Pac Man according to [www.wired.com/news/culture/0,20607-0.html this article] so I was off by quite a bit TheGreatZorko (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Box office smash
Maybe this is just an Australian thing, but I seriously doubt it. On TV we often see promos for movies they're going to screen, with the voice-over describing them as a "Box office smash" or "comedy smash" or "smash hit comedy" or such like. Firstly, what is "smash" supposed to mean? Thinking about it logically, it suggests the breaking (= smashing) of some kind of record. Box office receipts, perhaps. That's fine ... except very often the movies given these labels did not break any records at the box office. Sometimes they did fair business, were quite popular for a few weeks, but still managed to break no records. Sometimes they had only a limited release at the cinema, got maybe 2 stars out of 5 from the critics, went more or less straight to DVD, and then popped up on TV a little while later. I would have thought that using the word "smash" in connection with a movie that was associated with no records whatsoever is probably illegal under the Misleading or deceptive conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act. I'm not seeking a legal opinion, but am I taking these ads too literally and perhaps I should get a life and move on and get over it? In which case, what would be a more useful and practical interpretation of "smash"? Or do I have a point? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "smash" is used precisely because it really doesn't mean anything much. It could mean "smashed expectations", when the expectations were particularly low.  Truth-in-advertising rules only really work when the advertiser has made a factual statement that turns out to be wrong, or grossly misleading; saying something is a "smash" might give you the impression it's a success, but really isn't factually claiming that.  So it's a lie, but an advertising lie, in the same way that Häagen-Dazs won't make you sexy and Victoria's Secret won't make you look like Adriana Lima. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it is probably used because it is a vague word that conveys excitement. While someone here at WP:RD/E may know about the historical use of this term in advertising, this question might be better answered at Reference desk/Language. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that a more likely etymology of "smash" is that it's simply an extension of the metaphor "hit". A hit is a success that makes an "impact" on the public, borrowing from the terminology of baseball and similar sports; then "smash" is simply a stronger word for hit. A success similarly also be described as a "bomb" in British usage, and a "blockbuster" (a big bomb) in both British and American usage. It's all about hitting, not breaking records. (American usage reserves "bomb" for a notable failure; its backers feel like a bomb hit them.) --Anonymous, 09:22 UTC, January 20/08.


 * That surprises me. Are you saying that when a British person refers to a movie as a "bomb", they mean the exact opposite of what an American would understand by that term?  Talk about 2 nations separated by a common language.  Re "blockbuster", my understanding is that to qualify for that label the movie has to be "big" in the sense of running time, or production cost, or huge big-name cast, etc.  A little indie film made over 2 weekends on a $100,000 budget and a cast of 5 unknowns, that just happens to do far better than expected, wouldn't normally be called a "blockbuster", would it?  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd pretty much agree with you regarding "blockbuster", excepting the use of running time, which is kind of a weird criterion for the label. To me, an American, a blockbuster is all about the big budget, big stars, big hype, etc., as you say, and not necessarily about any eventual success. Thus, I'd have no problem describing a movie as a "blockbuster bomb" or some variation thereof. Also, I'd say Anon's dead on regarding the relation between "hit" and "smash". - Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The big budget, big stars, big hype, etc., are techniques for attempting to create a blockbuster hit. If it bombs, it's only a would-be blockbuster. Oh, I know, let's try some dictionaries.  Okay, American Heritage, here, agrees with me: "Something, such as a film or book, that sustains widespread popularity and achieves enormous sales". But Merriam-Webster, here, goes both ways: "one that is notably expensive, effective, successful, large, or extravagant". Take your pick, then. --Anon, 23:10 UTC, January 21.


 * So, by the 2nd definition, Heaven's Gate qualified as a blockbuster, but by the 1st it failed utterly. Interesting.  I guess what all this tells us is that when it comes to marketing hype, believe at your peril.  Which brings us back to square 1.  Thanks everyone for your thoughts.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the American film industry, "blockbuster" and "bomb" are borrowed words from stage. Most people I know will tell you that "blockbuster" means that a play is so popular that all other plays on the block go bust.  There is no proof of this source, but it holds that a blockbuster play is an extremely popular play.  For movies, a "blockbuster" usually refers to a movie that pushes out competition.  For example, all of the "Star Wars" sequels (and prequels) were blockbusters.  Nobody wanted to compete.  As for "bomb", it simply means that expectations were high and then dropped fast, "like a bomb."  If a movie is expected to do poorly and does, it is not a bomb.  If a movie is expected to do great and does poorly, it is a bomb.  The most common example of this is "Ishtar", but there are many more in recent years.  Some are such bombs that people wonder if the movie was really released or if it was just a figment of their imagination.  Consider "Basic Instinct 2".  As for "smash hit".  That is used for a movie that is not a blockbuster, not number 1 in the box office, not necessarily expected to last for any length of time, but still sold some tickets.  Nobody wants to see the #2 comedy.  So, it is called the "smash hit comedy."  Another common description is the "sleeper hit."  That means that the movie didn't do well at first, but somehow continued to do better and better and eventually became popular.  Those are very rare.  The biggest example that I know of is "Pulp Fiction."  It opened in those weird art-house theaters that normal people don't go to.  It sold more and more tickets each week and then went to wide release in all the normal theaters.  Because it went from very few people knowing about it to a huge hit over a few weeks, it was a sleeper hit.  Revisionist history (mainly guys in Hollywood wanting to claim that they were on board with it from the beginning) claims that the art-house release was just to support art-house theaters.  I don't believe that at all.  It hurt the theaters by forcing them to staff up to handle the crowds and then quickly and without warning moving the crowds to larger theaters. --  k a i n a w &trade; 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I have so much to learn. OK, so when you refer to expectations (If a movie is expected to do poorly and does, ....), whose expectations are we talking about?  Who gets to "decide", presciently, that a movie is going to do well, poorly, or whatever?  If all this terminology is based on the relationship between these expectations and what actually happens in reality, all it is is a commentary on the expectations, not a commentary on the movies themselves.  No?  A movie that did very well in one country but badly in another is still exactly the same movie.  When it comes to showing a movie on TV, some considerable time after its cinematic release, they want to give their viewers a good reason to watch it particularly if it's in prime time.  So I understand some marketing hype is necessary, particularly if it wasn't a No.1 hit, because some people only ever see the big-name movies and seem to be totally unaware of the existence of any others.  At the end of the day, who cares what someone else once a long time ago, before the film was even released, thought its future success would be; all TV viewers really care about is whether the movie actually did well at the box-office (which equates to "a lot of people saw it and enjoyed it"), and whether they personally liked the movie or not and whether they would personally watch it again, or not. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Outdenting...) Limiting this to just the major motion pictures, the production companies decide if a movie is going to do well or not. This decides how they will market the film.  To be very general, this is how it works:
 * Someone has an idea for a movie. These days, it is almost always a remake of something already done a thousand times.
 * Someone attaches some names to the idea. For example, if you can say Brad Pitt is interested in acting in your movie, you will get more names attached to it.
 * A production company picks up the idea and agrees to fund it. How much they fund it is based on how much money they think the movie will make.
 * The movie is made (usually going well over budget and well over time). The producers tend to ask for "dailies" - clips of the movie as it is being shot.  They use the dailies to decide if it is good or not.
 * The movie goes into post-production. The producers watch the movie.  They have test audiences watch it.  They get a feel for how much money it will bring in.
 * Based on the projected profitability, they set aside marketing money to pay actors to do the talk show circuit, pay for commercials, put trailers on movies, put up billboards, pay movie reviewers to review the movie... or they decide it won't make much profit and just slip it unnoticed into theaters.
 * The movie is released, makes whatever it makes, and then others judge how well the producers prejudged the profitability of the movie. This is no different than people criticizing quarterbacks on Monday (a day after the game, just in case you aren't into American Football).
 * The actual profitability is used to work out an international and tiered release schedule to aircraft release, PPV release, DVD/Video release, cable release, and broadcast release. Also, sequels may be picked up if it makes good money.
 * So... you can see that it is nothing but hype. There is truly no such thing as a movie you have to see.  There are very few great movies.  I've seen every movie that has ever won an Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Actor, or Best Actress.  Many of them are simply "good", not "great", not "blockbuster", and not a "smash hit."  To let you in on a dirty little secret... the goal is not to get you to see a particular movie.  The goal is to get you to go to the theater.  The belief is that getting you in the habit of going to the theater will make you continue to go even if there is nothing to see.  So, they hype and hype and hype to try and get to show up and see any movie at all.  For the most part, it works.  The movie business is doing very well. --  k a i n a w &trade; 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, when I see the incredibly exorbitantly inflated prices at the candy bar (yes, sadly, we now have "candy bars" in our movie theatres, when nobody here  ever  refers to any of the products sold there as "candy"; it's just not Aussie lingo), I'm persuaded the object has nothing much to do with the movie but the side-products they sell in the foyer.  People will scoff loads and loads of junk at the movies, abandoning all normal health-related considerations, and are prepared to pay through the nose for the privilege.  There seems to be some psychological thing at work here, which the theatres are very aware of and are happy to exploit shamelessly.  Thanks for your detailed answers, Kainaw.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology? "Smash" (noun) idiomatic meaning "great success" is from 1923 ("Variety" headline, Oct. 16, in ref. to Broadway productions of "The Fool" and "The Rise of Rosie O'Reilly" and incidentally comes from tennis apparently, cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

remember this film?
A B&W film. The setting is Himalayan. Sherpa people are there. They herd sheep. White men are there. Avalanche. After a narrow escape from an avalanche one character looks up and exhorts: "Lord Shiva be praised". Can somebody recognize the movie? --Filbmuff (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lost Horizon (1937 film), perhaps? --  JackofOz (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in that film. There's some Shiva-ring, and an avalanche near the end, but nobody says that. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Helena Bonham Carter
Is this picture of Helena Bonham Carter playing Elizabeth in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? David Pro (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is H.B. Carter. If it's from that specific film or not, I don't know.  Dismas |(talk) 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

From this site, apparently it is. SaundersW (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

CD sale information
Is there anywhere online that I can gain CD sales information? Trying to improve the S Club article, and there are no references for sales performances.. but I'm not sure where to look to back up these figures.

Any help? -  ǀ Mikay ǀ   14:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You won't find information like that anywhere online. Record companies keep it secret, unless the artist gets a gold disc or something which marks a certain number of sales. --Richardrj talkemail 06:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah right, so the best that I can do is search out for any Discs they've been awarded, and judge it from there.. -  ǀ Mikay ǀ   09:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminator 2
Does Kyle Reese appeear in Terminator 2? David Pro (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sort of. His scene was cut from the theatrical release but included in the extended version.  See Kyle Reese.  Dismas |(talk) 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000934/) seems the answer is yes. ny156uk (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but only in the extended edition, which contains a scene in which Sarah Connor dreams about him and the dream-Reese urges her to protect their son. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

ED-209
Are the ED-209 and the ED-260 the same model or not? David Pro (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, sort of. See ED-209.  Dismas |(talk) 15:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The series finale of Days of Our Lives
What would the series finale of Days of Our Lives be like if it were to air some time in 2009? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since that isn't likely to happen, one will never know.  Corvus cornix  talk  05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess, 3D, HD, lots of grey big hair, prosthetics, fish lips that swim about independently, airborne lounges and cars, even slower pacing? Oh, that's only a year ahead so maybe no difference after all – I was thinking of Futurama. It'll just grind to. a. halt. Awww. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)