Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 July 30

= July 30 =

Films where the director treats the audience with contempt
I was reading the article for From Dusk till Dawn and it mentioned a reviewer who complained about how Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino had made a movie that treats the viewer with contempt just for watching it, or something along those lines. I can kind of see what they were getting at, although it does not hamper my enjoyment of the film. Are there other films that fit that description? Where it is apparent that the director purposely attempted to insult (perhaps not the correct word, but the only one that comes to mind at the moment) the viewer?-- Groovy Sandwich  02:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people apparently believe that's the intent of filmmaker Harmony Korine, although Korine says, "I mostly just make things to entertain myself and at the same time hope that there’s some type of audience that likes what I’m doing." Pepso2 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see that; Gummo was a trip-- Groovy Sandwich  03:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Most horror films and a whole lot of "art" films fit that description. Same for anything directed by Michael Bay or produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.  There's that human centipede movie.  Pecker, Cecil B. Demented, and  A Dirty Shame are more embarrassing for the director of such classics as Hairspray than the audience.  I instinctively avoid such crap, so I apologize for not having anything to suggest for your viewing pleasure.  Oh, wait, Mars Attacks occurs to me.  Can't think of anything worse than that that I've actually sat through.  μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Aside from the Michael Bay (too many explosions, too little plot) and Jerry Bruckheimer films, those sound interesting. I might look into them. Thanks-- Groovy Sandwich  03:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mel Brooks films and Top Secret! break the fourth wall, after describing the plot that the characters are going through, and say something like "that sounds like the script of a bad movie". In fact, our Top Secret! article has a screenshot of that exact scene.  In a way it's poking fun at the film but also at those who've paid to see it.  Dismas |(talk) 04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blazing Saddles does that really well. The end of that film feels like Brooks couldn't think of a decent ending and so just "gave up".  It's actually quite hilarious.  Monty Python and the Holy Grail, released a year later, basically has the almost the exact same ending.  I have no idea if the Python boys ripped off Brooks or if the similar endings are just a coincidece.  -- Jayron  32  04:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Those Python and Brooks movies are effing hilarious and smart as hell. No contempt for the audience there.  μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you like Mel Brooks, you'd like Top Secret!. Dismas |(talk) 04:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The ending to Holy Grail, in my opinion, is the ultimate act of contempt for the audience; doesn't hamper the comedic value but it is essentially the director giving the audience the finger-- Groovy Sandwich  04:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think Medeis is confusing "poor quality" and "not entertaining" with contempt for the audience. Michael Bay seems to genuinely wish to entertain his audience, and though his films are often cited as being base and appealing to the lowest common denominator, they are quite popular; I see nothing in his films to indicate he has "contempt" for his audience.  OTOH, the sort of "fuck it, I don't care" attitude shown in Blazing Saddles and Top Secret (yes, Dismas, I've seen it a dozen times) and Holy Grail (especially the endings of Saddles and Holy Grail) show a clear attempt to genuinely piss off the audience, or at least to use the appearence of intending to do so for comic effect.  It's like the difference between a "hack" comic and what Andy Kaufman did.  A hack comic doesn't necessarily mistreat his audience intentionally, he's just bad.  Andy Kaufman used to do stuff just to piss off the audience as a form of entertainment unto itself.  So, Medeis you really need to understand the distinction between "contempt for the audience" (which is actually a distinct entertainment tradition unto itself, see not only Kaufman, but also so-called "insult comics" like Don Rickles) and movies that are earnestly trying to entertain the audience of their own right, but failing for one reason or another.  -- Jayron  32  05:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree totally that Blazing Saddles and Holy Grail show contempt for the audience. The Blazing Saddles ending comported with the entire movie's sense of parody.  "I must have killed more men than Cecil B. DeMille."  The film contained tons of winking jokes for the audience, and pulling back to see that the movie was in fact a movie was brilliant &mdash; and of course we zoom back in to be a movie again after a bit.  Earlier drafts of Holy Grail had the knights actually finding the Holy Grail in a department store and then getting themselves arrested for taking it, so I always thought the abrupt ending was an unfortunate descendant of a better idea.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The ending of Blazing Saddles is indeed brilliant. The ending of Holy Grail is extremely abrupt, but there was a tipoff earlier when modern-day police were seen interviewing the widow of the murdered historian. Both films contain a number of instances of breaking the fourth wall and/or addressing the audience directly, which is nothing unusual for comedies and goes back generations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Haven't seen Top Secret--probably that damn instinct. If you wish to watch John Waters, watch Hairspray (the original), Serial Mom (Kathleen Turner!) , and Cry-Baby (Johnny Depp!) first, and in that order. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

On Simpsons, a cellular service sponsors the Smithsonian
Even though I'm not a Simpson's fan, I remember watching an episode long ago involving a cellular service provider sponsoring the Smithsonian because the government ran out of money. Thinking of the current events, made me think of that episode.

What would this episode be? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it was Make Room for Lisa.
 * I can't help also mentioning Taco Bell's April Fool's day gag from 1996 here. It seems related.
 * APL (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will also drop the names Americathon, a 1979 film in which the US is near bankruptcy and President John Ritter decides to hold a telethon to get it out of debt; and this article from two days ago noting that Apple, Inc. currently has more cash on hand than the United States ... sort of. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the BEP could just print $100 billion and get ahead of Apple again. Apple could not do the same.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Question (Rolling Stones name origin)
Did The Rolling Stones really get their band name from a Muddy Waters song of the same name? B-Machine (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the third sentence of our article on them, yes. It's referenced too.  Dismas |(talk) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This song, in fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The proverb "A rolling stone gathers no moss" has been around for centuries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the title to one of some actual value. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Substitute (cricket)
How is the substitute(s) chosen? I was watching the recent England-India tests which saw the use of a substitute fielder - to me, he didn't seem like the next best person. Since they only field, I might be wrong: those people just outside the England XI (Ravi Bopara, for example) aren't necessarily the best fielders. But it might be the case they pick someone a bit weaker, maybe a young county cricketer, to ensure that substitutions aren't improvements. Our article doesn't say. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Standard Playing Conditions" for test matches here state only that:"1.2.1 Each captain shall nominate 11 players plus a maximum of 4 substitute fielders in writing to the ICC Match Referee before the toss...... 1.2.2 Only those nominated as substitute fielders shall be entitled to act as substitute fielders during the match, unless the ICC Match Referee, in exceptional circumstances, allows subsequent additions.  1.2.3 All those nominated including those nominated as substitute fielders, must be eligible to play for that particular team and by such nomination the nominees shall warrant that they are so eligible....2.1.3 Substitute fielders shall only be permitted in cases of injury, illness or other wholly acceptable reasons...."  I think that it is normal practice now for the home team to use players (not usually first team players) who are registered for the county or team where the test match takes place, rather than using people just outside the national team.  The away team will be restricted (I think) to using players who are in the touring party, or other players registered for that country but who happen to play locally (for example, India-registered players who live in England).  The substitutes can only field, not bat or bowl.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Normal practice in England for home Tests is to use one of the young cricketers on the staff of the county that's hosting the match. I believe they sometimes use a youngster with England potential whose county is not currently playing a match, and they want them to sample the atmosphere, but it's normally the former. And usually one whose fielding is good! The ultimate example is,  of course, Gary Pratt. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)