Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 June 24

= June 24 =

Othello (2001): John Othello and Ben Jago?
I have a question regarding the relationship between John Othello and Ben Jago? They share a very complex relationship and I'm struggling to put it to words. Because even though, throughout the film, Jago is hellbent on sabotaging John Othello at the start he states (about Othello), "I loved him to you know".

Any help is greatly appreciated! 220.233.24.164 (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read our article (Othello (2001 TV film))? Particularly the last paragraph: "Finally, the film adopts a modern idea of the 21st century proposed at the time, inferring that the relationship between Othello and Iago is one of repressed homosexuality. Jago states that 'It was about love, simple as that'. This could be taken as a double meaning: 1.) Being the love between Othello and Dessie, and 2.) The repressed love Jago has for Othello. This is further hinted at by his refusal to let Lulu masturbate him during their foreplay, and his stating that '[He] loved [Othello] too'."
 * The film is obviously based on Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice, although apparently it plays more strongly on the possible repressed homosexuality between Othello and Iago/Jago (Sorry, but I haven't seen either the film or the play) . You will find a lot of scholarly thoughts about their relationship through Google searches - try 'othello iago relationship' or 'othello iago homosexual' for starters. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please identify this horror TV series/film
I saw a glimpse of some horror TV series or film in the 1980s or 1990s. There were syringes filled with a fluorescent substance, and injecting a person with this caused his/her hair to fall out in large clumps, following in a gruesomily messy death a few seconds afterwards. (Exactly how gruesomily messy it was, I must have blocked from my memory.) At one point, the doctor who invented this whole substance was thrown onto a whole cart of these syringes, dying the same messy death as everyone else injected with them. That's all I remember. Which TV series or film was it? J I P &#124; Talk 20:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's probably Re-Animator although the trope was used in the X-Files and 4400. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a Lovecraft fan and seen Re-Animator more then a few times, admittedly not recently, but the description the OP gives is the OPPOSITE of what happens in Re-Animator. Yes it has syringes filled with fluorescent substance, but dead things are injected and subsequently come back to life, not live things are injected to make them dead. Also falling into a cart full of syringes doesn't ring a bell either. Vespine (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

DVD Disclaimer
When I pop in a DVD that has commentaries/featurettes, I'm always confused about the message that appears stating that (paraphrasing) "the commentaries and statements contained herein are solely those of the people providing them and do not represent the thoughts or opinions of 20th Century Fox/Columbia Pictures/Disney/Whatever"

While I assume that there's a standard legal mumbo jumbo reason for requiring such a disclaimer, I notice it only appeared once commentaries and the like became standard, that is, my old VHS tapes do not have this disclaimer.

My question is: What's so different about have commentaries and features that require such distance for the parent company? Should I then assume that the FILM itself does contain the opinions of the parent company? That's a tongue-in-cheek question, obviously the answer is no, but then why suddenly start disclaiming when nobody was ever assuming that ANYTHING said in a movie or in an interview was the sworn statement of anyone but the person talking?71.243.94.115 (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A film is a work of fiction, in general, and that's understood. Hence the disclaimer at the end that any resemblance to actual persons is coincidental (except when it's historical fiction, obviously). The commentaries aren't works of fiction (theoretically), they're opinions of observers of the film. So if they say anything controversial, the parent company disavows any connection to their comments. Basically they don't want trouble. In fact, typically they will say, "...do not necessarily represent..." That gives them total wiggle room. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "You do not represent me" is not the same as "Whatever you say, I disagree." —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely. That's why they say "not necessarily". That is, they might agree, or they might not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What I said is precisely why the word necessarily is not necessary. —Tamfang (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree (not that I would necessarily have done so; I just happen to on this occasion) . If they write "The views presented do not represent those of ABC Company", many would take that to mean that ABC Company's views are necessarily different from those presented.  They don't want to be so categorical, but as Bugs says, they don't want to be pinned down either.  So, it's "not necessarily".  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  08:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Film and TV companies have legal departments that'll spend a long time checking that nothing in a film/on TV is libellous or defamatory before it's released. DVD extras are often made cheaply and they might not be checked so carefully (e.g. if an actor/crewmember makes a sarcastic comment about on-location food or tells an anecdote about someone messing up, that might be considered defamatory).  Another question is how much legal force these disclaimers actually carry in terms of preventing the production company and distributers from being sued (this almost certainly varies between jurisdictions). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember there having been a lawsuit in the 90's against a studio for commentary that was added to a laser disk, leading to the disclaimers. Unfortunately searching using the key word commentary gets you any article on the web that has a comments section. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a discussion of the 1991 incident where MGM sued Criterion for releasing the first three Bond movies with rather frank commentary: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/10198222-post62.html


 * . No animals were injured in order to write this reference section of wikipedia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)