Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 July 26

= July 26 =

Apt Pupil movie
Dear Wikipedia,

I would like to make an inquiry pertaining to one of your articles pertaining to the movie Apt Pupil. I had seen a tv show nearly 10 years prior with the same story line.

After a long period of searching. I finally found the CBS After School Special that aired on April 11,1989 Season 6 episode 6 titled "A Matter of Conscience," about a teenage boy who is stunned to discover his grandfather's Nazi past based on the true story that took place in California in 1984. Then in 1998 it inspired the movie Apt Pupil starring Ian McKellen and Brad Renfro. I remember seeing this episode when I was a junior in high school and when I saw Apt Pupil I was reminded of the exact same story line of the SchoolBreak Special. For I had come home from school that day and watching it prior to doing my homework. And it stuck in my head all these years because it was a true story and how the grandfather was indicted to Israel to stand trial for his holocaust war crimes and dies in the hospital before being indicted.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252694/

You might want to include this as a reference on the Apt Pupil page as well. Thank you Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.34.143 (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We would need a reliable source that connected the two. Your comments here kind of imply that the movie is a kind of rip-off or remake of the afters school special. I haven't seen either film, so I can't speak to specific similarities, but the film Apt Pupil is an adaptation of the Stephen King short story Apt Pupil, which was published in 1982. Matt Deres (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Minions have spawned" in Latin: "stipatores pariuntur"?
Is "stipatores pariuntur" an appropriate Latin translation of "minions have spawned", as used in League of Legends? Might a better translation exist? Neon Merlin  06:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah that works. Although that actually says "are spawned/are being spawned", in the past tense it would be "parti sunt". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do review aggregators prefer critics' opinion over audience's
Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, AllRovi, ReviewGang and many other film review aggregators seem to give more gravity to critics than to the website's users. If only one score is shown it's the critics' score by default, and if not their score is shown first. Lists of "best in genre", "best in theaters" etc. are sorted by critics' statics. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around? Thanks, 84.109.248.221 (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When I've looked into users scores for hotels and restaurants, I've noticed a tendency for users to go a little crazy with the low scores. Lots of unwarranted 0s and 1s because they had a single bad experience, or it didn't live up to the hype. Critics supposedly try and account for this.  For games and stuff, Metacritic discusses this and possible reasons here. Mingmingla (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Critics are presumed to be expert observers in their field, with a broad range of experience and exposure. For example, Leonard Maltin has well over 10,000 films in his book, and there's a reasonable chance that he's seen most of them. So he's going to have a keen eye for how well a particular story or other aspect of a film compares with others in its class. The average moviegoer might not have anything close to that range of experience, so as Mingla says, they might tend give a more skewed response, either in the positive or negative direction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And on the converse, people tend to see the sort of films they like, and rate them higher than the average audience or Maltin might because of that. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also seem to be a lot of three-stars from fans, where a four or two-star might be more appropriate. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * User generated ratings are less reliable because they are open to scamming: shills or even automated bots can be used to generate dishonest reviews: either good ones for your own movies or bad ones for competitors. By aggregating the reviews of known critics it cuts down on that.  -- Jayron  32  13:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but they can cut down on bots by using captchas, and perhaps discounting reviewers who give all 0 ratings (or all maximum ratings). StuRat (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why go to that trouble, when they can get verifiably-notable authorities? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The weekly box office ratings, which effectively count the number of bums on seats, can be thought of as a fans rating perhaps modified by the marketing hype. What I would really like to see would be a measure for the percentage full for each showing which might go some way to reducing the effect of marketing hype.  Astronaut (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather say it's the opposite. It's a measure of the marketing hype, ever so slightly modified by fans' rating./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Alice Underwood Fitch
Regarding uploading photos and important info to listing...In regards to Alice Underwood Fitch heading, I have excellent photos and newspaper articles that substantiate provenance I would like to upload to listing. How do I do it Regards, Dick Othus  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmarveltoo (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alice Underwood Fitch is the relevant article. See WP:CITE for the full set of instructions on how to add references and construct citations.  You may also want to look at WP:RS for the guidelines on what sort of material can be used (newspaper articles are generally good).  For the photographs, see WP:PD and WP:NFC.  If they were published before 1923, they'll be OK - if not, they probably won't.  WP:CQ is the place to ask about the status of any particular photograph. Tevildo (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)