Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 July 6

= July 6 =

Harry Potter
Is it my imagination, or are the movies not really good when one subtracts all the hype? In terms of the books vs. the films -- for example, in HPII, Harry is summoned to Dumbledore's office, at which point Dumbledore asks him if he has anything to tell him. When he says no, he is dismissed. Seems to me a veeeery lame way to create the need to show Dumbledore's office, which of course is meant to show off all the wonderous gadgets and hoo-hahs, but makes me wonder how odd that would be if there would be no books and this would be a movie unto itself. Would that pass...seems ridiculous to me. And then in terms of the computer graphics/special effects, it seems that the special effects could have been MUCH better. I thought the spiders in HPII were quite unrealistic.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it just my imagination or are you asking a rather subjective question? ;-)  Seriously, would you like links to reviews that discuss the merits of the films?  Dismas |(talk) 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought there was like an objective "yes, everyone knows that the movies are junk," sort of thing.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets received an 82% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes (157/192), so at least 35 movie critics agreed with your impressions that the movie wasn't that good. Metacritic gives it a 65, the low end of "Generally Favorable". You can see details of the reviews on the linked pages. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I never noticed how the directors kept changing until now -- I guess they do do something after all!  DRosenbach  ( Talk 05:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a well-known general rule: The book is better than the movie. It has nothing to do with Harry Potter.  If you want to get into "why", you are simply drumming up a long-winded debate that has no place here. --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Except with the Harry Potter books, it seems particularly puzzling. Considering the high profile, the wads of money involved, and the all-star adult cast, the films (particularly the first) are amazingly bad. Especially in areas, like special effects, where they have no business being bad, given the amount of money and how eager people were to work on it. Is there an article where someone discusses why the effects were not as good as one might expect? I mean, writing, child acting, etc can be easily excused, but this really puzzles me. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why pick on this book? How about the Lord of the Rings trilogy?  How long does a fight scene need to be?  How about the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?  Could they ruin a good story any further?  It doesn't even need to be a high profile book.  How about something like The Outsiders?  A very good book turned into a rather mediocre movie.  Even when it is done in reverse (the movie first, the book second) you get the same thing.  I remember reading the book WarGames after the movie came out.  The book was much better.  It is a general rule: the book is better than the movie.  You can nitpick all you want, but you are just getting into a pointless discussion and this is not a discussion forum. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's often best to read the book after seeing the movie rather than before. Regarding LOTR trilogy, I only saw it on DVD, which was a good thing, as it enabled me to fast forward through the boring stuff - namely, the seemingly interminable battle scenes. There's another problem these CGI films have, which I really picked up on in Superman Returns and the recent remake of Clash of the Titans: They are all dark, and I don't mean in terms of plot necessarily, but in appearance. My guess is that by making it dark, it's easier to do the CGI stuff. But the original Clash of the Titans had a "bright" look to it, whereas the remake seems to have been soaked in soot - which is also true of LOTR, Harry Potter, the more recent Star Wars films, and any number of others that are highly dependent on computer graphics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But I'm not looking to discuss the general merits of the film, as I specifically said. I (not the OP) am looking for something discussing the special effects, which are not as good as the special effects in most blockbuster films released at the time and earlier, despite the high budget and access to resources and people. That it isn't as good as the book is completely irrelevant to this: that the high profile and popularity of the books gave the films high budgets and help from almost anyone they'd asked, is. Do you know of such an article, or even maybe a book or documentary, discussing this? 86.164.57.20 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they didn't think they have to put too much effort in to carry the plot -- merely to mirror enough of the text to wow people with the story brought to life. The dialogue is terrible and the scenes are choppy, but as long as we see ministry members with really funny hats and fast broomsticking during quidditch, they supposed that kids (and lame adults) would be satisfied.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that they tried to fit the plot of rather long books in fairly short films. That meant they had to miss large bits out. They've realised missing large bits out of the last book's plot won't work (since the story is very linear and doesn't have parallel sub-plots that can be cleanly removed or sections of the main plot that can be skipped over without making the next bit make no sense - the have to cover each Horcrux and Hallow individually for it to work), so are splitting it into two films. That might help. --Tango (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Books are not always better than movies. The Twilight books are all terrible. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah but so are the movies... Googlemeister (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you guys keep on reading books you consider 'terrible', or going to see 'terrible' movies, or watching them on DVD? (I assume you have something to back up your opinions, other than the opinions of others.) --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some exceptions to the general rule, as there usually are with such rules. I have never read a Twilight book or seen a Twilight film and have no current planes to, so I won't comment on your particular example. --Tango (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How many people did Palidin kill on Have Gun – Will Travel
How many people did Paladin kill on Have Gun – Will Travel? A friend of mine heard that the most people killed in gunfights on an American TV series was 140 by Little Joe Cartright on Bonanza. I thought that Paladin would easily beat that number. There were 225 episodes over six years. In the first two years I think he killed at least one man in each episode. But as the series got into the third through sixth seasons, he killed fewer and fewer men in gunfights. So does Paladin have the record? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to look into Jack Bauer - the site bauerkillcount.com lists over 200 kills though the first seven seasons, and I believe he was quite active during Day 8. Although he didn't always use a gun.  Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 140 by Little Joe?! As I recall, the whole family was a right peaceable bunch. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That is what my friend said. Bonanza was on for 14 years, so that is 10 per year.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it; I would really like to see some actual data on it. 10 per year, with 20-odd shows in a season?  So Little Joe killed a man on an average of every other episode?  Killing someone used to be a much bigger deal, especially on television.  These days if you don't lose 2-3 henchman to gunfire during NCIS-LA, someone evidently considers it a waste of an hour, but in the 50s and 60s they were much more likely to "wing him" and take him into the sheriff for an implied trial and sentencing than kill him on the spot.


 * I wouldn't pick Paladin as a contender either. There were many of those shows that were mostly humorous.


 * If someone is going to look up body counts, please include Gunsmoke. Looked at one way, Sheriff Dillon killed a man at the beginning of EVERY episode  (It was in the intro 8>).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphcook (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Was any winning team of World Cup tournament undefeated for entire tournament? (ie NED?)
TOday (7/6/10) the Netherlands team defeated Uruguay in 2010 World Cup semifinals. They have not lost a single game since the 2010 Cup tournament began on June 11. HAs ANY team in the history of the World Cup ever won every match (opening rounds, group of 16, group of 8, quarter- & semi-finals) and gone on to win the Cup? If not, who came the closest, and when? Is the Netherlands team setting a World Cup record here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.7.60 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Brazil certainly won all their games in the 2002 tournament; as did France in 1998, and Brazil in 1970. The first three competitions were on a knock-out basis, so by definition the winners won all their games - Uruguay in 1930 and Italy in 1934 and 1938. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, Italy drew a match in 1934, against Spain, and won the replay. Algebraist 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's normal for the winning team not to have lost a match; there are only three exceptions. I haven't checked yet how common it is not to have drawn any. Algebraist 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't the Dutch win all their qualifying matches as well? 67.243.7.245 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, France did not win all their games in 1998. The quarter-final against Italy, which they won after a penalty shootout, was technically a draw. And yes, the Netherlands won every single game in their route to the title (so far), including all of their qualifying games. The same was done by Brazil in 1970. The same was also done by Uruguay in 1930 and Italy in 1938, but neither of them played any qualifying matches, because there weren't any for the 1930 World Cup, and Italy had gained the right to qualify automatically for the 1938 tournament as reigning champions. --Магьосник (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, a draw is not a defeat, so they would still be undefeated. Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just technically, Mr G. In no sense is a draw a defeat.  It may not be a win, but equally it's not a defeat.  That's what a draw is: neither one thing nor the other.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And Brazil won all their seven games during the 2002 World Cup, but did that after having conceded three draws and six losses during their qualifying campaign. --Магьосник (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The tune that appeared in Matlock and Final Fantasy 8
Any idea what it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.7.245 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it sounds a lot like the tune for When I Fall in Love, other than that I don't know, have you tried looking at Music of Final Fantasy VIII.  meltBanana  18:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am certain that had FF8 credited anyone else for the music the info would've spread all over the net. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

School of Rock
What's the tune that plays when they're driving in the van and Jack Black is screaming along with the intro facing back at the kids. It's a kind of "AAAHH, AHHH.... AAAHH, AHHH..." if that makes sense? ThanksPopcorn II (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be Immigrant Song by Led Zeppelin -- Ferkelparade &pi; 22:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)