Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 July 18

= July 18 =

Movie Line?
I know this is a long shot, but worth a shot. Does anybody know of a movie line something like "In case I forget to say it later, I had a really good time." The context would be it was said at the beginning of a date. Thanks. -- LarryMac | Talk  16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently Pretty Woman has that line, according to IMDB (via Google). Geez, what an awful movie. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cap'n. I won't be rewatching that one!  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That probably makes you a better person. =) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Brycing
Hello, This is a request to have “Brycing” included to the encyclopedia....Attached is an e-mail from Wade Schalles to me...This is a very exciting thing for me to do for my son. I haven’t been able to give him much but he deserves the recognition and your encyclopedia is the best way to do this!!!

His birthday is the 27th of July. No better present could be given...thanks

Bob Saviers (personal information redacted)

PS: Wade of course is our greatest American wrestler of all time and one of the greatest Americans of all time too....His inspirational speaking and motivational styles are legend...Wades Schalles is the inventor of the "Spladle". He can be found on television and the web.

Coach Chris Crawford can affirm to this move being original in nature enough to be declared a seperate move too. He can be reached at (personal information redacted) ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bob,

Your welcome, it clearly demonstrates that Bryce has a creative thought process.

I'm sure his new adaptation to the cross-face cradle series will help a great many athletes. It simplifies something that has been a little more difficult for younger wrestlers to digest.

I'm going to tell people that his new addition to the move is called "brycing" the cross face cradle. I think that has the same ring to it as the spladle.

Sorry we didn't have more time to spend together. Thanks for everything.

Wade Schalles............

Star Awards Program

www.starawardsprogram.org

The Schalles Award

www.theschallesaward.com

(personal information redacted) Definition:  "Brycing" ...a variation and or addition to the cross face cradle as invented by Bryce Saviers in 2007 and named to him by Wade Schalles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.225.37 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Bob. First, I've removed the personally identifiable information from above.  You really don't want the whole internet to have access to such information.  Also, I'm sorry to report that Wikipedia can't just add articles on request.  An article topic must be notable and verifiable. (I will add links to those terms, as used here, in a moment).  Here we go -  Verifiable and  Notable.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bob, To save you some boring policy reading, What LarryMac is saying is that we can't just publish something here out of thin air. As a means of quality control, we try to ensure that everything we publish on Wikipedia has been published in a reputable source first. If we can't source our statements, then they can't be distinguished in quality from any of the other anonymous rants on the internet. If you want to see your son's move published here, try to get it published somewhere else first. In fact, he may be even more honored if you can get him mentioned in a wrestling magazine than on wikipedia! I'm sure Mr. Schalles could help make that happen. --Shaggorama (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Crackdust
Long soapboxing rant removed. -- Kreachure (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the big deal of casting?
Hello. I must apologize beforehand if I sound too ranty, but I do have a question I'd like cleared up: I've always wondered why Casting is considered such an important part of film and television. In many movie credits, for example, it's roughly Director-Executive Producer-Editor-Casting director! Why is that? Sure, that's how you get your actors, but if you decide to have, say, Harrison Ford for your movie, it's not because of the "great casting of the Casting Director", it's because it's frickin Harrison Ford!

The (important) casting decisions are even not totally decisions of the casting team, sometimes they have even been made by the director and producers beforehand! Even if this isn't the case, when they're in the process of auditions for a major part, it's usually the director and producers who decide who's perfect for the part or not, not some casting director who has nothing to do with the actual creative process of making a movie or TV show!

If you give an award for "Best Casting", isn't that like giving an award for "getting such great actors together in one place"? How is that different from giving out an award for best ensemble cast, or even for best actors/actresses in the first place?

I know it sounds like I have something against casting people, but I sincerely don't understand why they're considered so important in the whole process. Perhaps you can clear that up for me? Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be making the assumption that any actor of sufficient quality would be good in any role. Sometimes there is a "right actor" for a role. For instance, Bond afficionados often argue over who was the "best" bond: even though each actor who played bond is good in their own right, many people feel that one actor or other simply fit the mold for the Bond character better than others. And sometimes the best actor isn't necessarily well known. The recent movie Juneau had a relatively unknown girl playing the main, but she was great anyway. Also, famous actors carry in Star image which effects how the audience sees them. Star image is half the reason Arnold was funny in Kindergarten Cop. Also, sometimes actors are best when typecasted, such as Robert Deniro, Bruce Willis, and Samuel L. Jackson. An award for casting is really an award for reading a script or screenplay and visualizing the characters well, for saying "XXXX would be PERFECT for this!" --Shaggorama (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to the good points Shaggorama makes: people like Harrison Ford or other people whose recognizability and star power is ridiculously high are kind of outside the scope of the normal casting process, really. A lot of the time the decision to cast them is not so much a casting decision as it is a marketing decision. (And, if you'll allow a generalization, the the more that counts, the more likely to movie is to be shallow and stupid and meaningless in a way that casting choices aren't going to affect all that much.) But Harrison Ford is just a single actor in a movie that probably has dozens of speaking parts, at least half a dozen of which are likely to be important to the story and the storytelling. Casting the right person for the right part is an extremely important part in getting a movie to work. If Jodie Foster hadn't been cast in Taxi Driver and the part had gone to someone who was less convincing as a teenage prostitute, the movie would have lost a great deal of its impact, for example. Or if Anthony Hopkins (who, despite a long career, was not well known to American audiences at the time) hadn't been cast as Hannibal Lecter, would the character have become such a horror movie icon? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But you can't give out awards for "saying" someone is perfect for a role, you give out an award directly to that person who may have been perfect in that role! It's like saying that an actor gave out a great performance, but instead of awarding him/her, you award the one that chose him/her? If an actor does well in a role, it's his/her own achievement, not the achievement of a casting director! How the heck are you, as a "best casting" award giver, going to know how the casting director "visualized" an actor in a role, and then awarding him/her for that?? In other words, I don't see why you would award someone who simply gave someone the opportunity to do his/her job, as great or lame as that may turn out! Think about it this way: let's say an actor (or an ensemble cast, etc.) was great in a movie. Then maybe you consider giving the casting director an award for choosing them. But, if the actors sucked, then you'll be able to say that the casting director's choice was poor. It's not like you're going to award a casting director for casting great actors, even though they sucked in a movie! "Casting" is just the audition and selection process; a "best casting award" doesn't award that process, it simply awards the fact that the actors the casting selected happened to be great in a movie! How's that any different from directly awarding the actors?!? Kreachure (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, of course you can give awards for that. Hell, you can give awards for anything you like. You can argue about this if you like, but the very fact that they are giving out awards for it proves that it can be done. And, honestly, it's not as if the other awards are really and purely based on actual merit or some kind of objective achievement. I mean, for example, was Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King really the best movie of the 2004 Academy Awards? Did that happen completely independently of the fact that it the last opportunity to give the award to that trilogy -- and boost its legend and, indirectly, subsequent DVD sales, for that matter? Or, to take another example, what about the fact that there's a strong strategic element to whether someone is nominated for an award for the lead or a supporting part, as discussed in a recent Onion AV Club article? These awards are -- especially today -- as at least as much about marketing as they are about honoring the best work in the industry. (Of course, the Academy Awards don't actually include an award for best casting, but that's kind of beside the point.)


 * In any case, there's a lot more to casting than just selecting good actors -- that is to say, it's nowhere near that simple. It's not as if you have a list of bad actors and good actors and you pick the good ones and avoid the bad ones. Just recognizing a good actor from a bad one under what can often be difficult conditions is difficult, but that's just the tip of an iceberg. You also need to be able to figure out, usually without the other actors present, whether the chemistry between all of these actors will work, and give direction to the actors and ask them for specific things, so you can evaluate their performance accurately and quickly -- it's as much about seeing potential as it is about seeing the ability on display in an audition. (The people doing the casting, especially for small parts, usually don't have a lot of time to spend per actor, so they really need to know what they're doing.) And, of course, the job also tends to involve a lot of networking and whatnot. It's a job that has a pretty tangible impact on what the actual movie or episode of TV series is going to feel like. It's true that if an actor does well in a role, that's to the actor's credit, not the casting director's, but a casting award isn't awarded for the acting, it's awarded for enabling that actor -- and, as a result, that on-screen chemistry -- to be there in the first place. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay. Maybe the casting director is partially to thank for the eventual chemistry between actors and parts which enables the rest of a movie or show to work. But I still think they're overrated, considering that it's the actors themselves that cause that chemistry and do the actual performances, and the director which actually helps everything flow together. Thanks for your time. Kreachure (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Trust me, if you were making a movie and you had to find, say, forty people to play various characters in the film, ranging from bit parts to leading roles, you wouldn't think they're overrated. That's a lot of work right there, and if it isn't done right, you may end up having to recast parts (which can be very expensive) or end up with a movie with performances that just don't work. Granted, that may happen anyway, but a competently run casting process will absolutely reduce the chances of that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sony Music Entertainment - Sony BMG
What is the difference between Sony Music Entertainment and Sony BMG? David Pro (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sony Music Entertainment owns 50% of Sony BMG as part of a joint venture, with Bertelsmann Music Group owning the other 50%. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)