Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 October 31

= October 31 =

Chord Progression
I have been reading around the articles about this but I haven't found and answer yet. Is a I-VII-IV-III-V-IV-V-I an actual chord progression? If so, could anyone explain to me if this are more than one progression together or anything like that? Basically, what I know is that I-VII-IV is a common progression the same for IV-V-I but I do not know for the rest. Also, anyone knows a song that uses it? Thanks! PabloClark (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it. The standard progressions involve I, IV, V as the majors, and the relative minors of those chords which are vi, ii, and iii. Thus, for the key of G, the major chords are G, C, and D, and the minor chords are Em, Am, and Bm.  Its not uncommon (again, staying in G for symplicity) to find any number of these combinations in a song, like G-C-Em-D or G-Am-Bm7-Em-D or something like that.  The VII chord is not often used, but I have seen it as an diminished or augmented chord in the progression, so in my G example, the VII chord F may appear as a F+ or F0 chord.  However, there may be many reasons why a composer would include a chord that was outside the standard progression, as it adds "tension" to a piece... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

differences and similarities
Is there a difference between hula and belly dancing, or are they similar in some fashions?72.229.139.171 (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean, other than the fact that Hula is Polynesian and belly dancing is Turkish? Or other than the fact that they use entirely different motions?   --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean other than the fact that they use entirely different motions.72.229.139.171 (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then, as answered, there is a difference (different culture, different motion) and similarity (similar dance, similar exposure of the midriff in popular dance). -- k a i n a w &trade; 01:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

PLayStation 1 Question
I have an Ps1 named SCPH-9002, I checked on the wikipedia playstation page and found out that my Playstation is next-last on the consumer model list, The last one is some Umknown Playstation so is my Playstation the last Playstation model? 85.220.101.206 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well just because the information is unknown - doesn't mean that it's didn't exist. And the SCPH-9002 is a Playstation, there's quite a few PS1 type models afterwards. Also, it looks like the difference between each model is where they're sold, so the model number just means that you bought the last series of playstation sold in europe before the PSOne. What's more, there will be thousands of copies of each model made and sold... So does it really matter?-- WORM  MЯOW  08:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah just wanted to know 85.220.101.206 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

James Bond
I'm probably contacting the wrong person but the web site is SO confusing, but here goes. There have been 23 James Bond movies, not 22 as stated on Wikipedia - you have forgotten about Never say never again, with Sean Connery in 1983 - sad but true.

Jackie Higson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.2.133 (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead of James Bond (film series) makes it clear that the number 22 refers only to the EON Productions films. The section "Non-EON films", farther down in the article, is where Never Say Never Again (and the 1967 Casino Royale) are treated. Deor (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And the Climax feature length episode in 1954... the first bond film!-- WORM  MЯOW  07:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Never Say Never Again (as well as the 1967 version of Casino Royale) aren't official Bond films, given that they weren't distribuited by MGM/UA. David Pro (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the modern rights to Never Say Never Again are, through various mergers in the film world, currently owned by United Artists; though as mentioned the film was made "outside of the canon" and as such, isn't counted in the standard set of Bond films. Incidentally, it is often claimed that the movie was a remake of Thunderball; however it was actually based on an earlier script which was itself the basis of the novel Thunderball.  Ian Flemming had written an original story intended to be the first James Bond film.  Production problems prevented the film from being made, so he scrapped the idea and reworked the story into the novel Thunderball.  Thunderball was later itself made into a movie.  Years later, the existance of that earlier script provided the basis for the making of NSNA outside of EON productions, which owned the rights to all of the other Bond stories, and of the rights to the rest of the franchise.  Therefore, the film Thunderball is a remake of the novelization of the unshot script of what would eventually become NSNA.  Confused?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  15:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how the word "official" can get attached to any company's films about Bond, no matter how dominant they may be. If a company announced it was making movies from all the Charles Dickens books, and made most of them, and then another company made a movie from one of the books the first company hadn't got to yet, how could anyone claim it either was or wasn't an "official" Dickens movie?  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that the estate of Charles Dickens has not signed an exclusive liscencing right for the intellectual property of his books, and Dickens books are in the public domain by now, the copyright having expired. Ian Flemming, and his estate since then, has signed such an exclusive liscencing deal with EON productions, and as such, they have exclusive right to the character.  The character of James Bond is the intellectual property of Flemmings estate, and they have the right to control how that character is used in the exact same way that the Disney corporation has the right to control how Mickey Mouse is used.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I understand that. And that's what stops any company other than EON from now making any Bond movies.  But the so-called "unofficial" Bond movies were made before EON had this licensing right - otherwise, they could never have been made in the first place.  I'd characterise the use of the word "official" in relation to the later ones as officious, but that's just me.  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Never Say Never Again was made while Eon had the licensing right. --Richardrj talkemail 09:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I rest my case then. --  JackofOz (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)