Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2016 February 21

= February 21 =

Dustin Hoffman - Comedy films
What comedy films did Dustin Hoffman star in?5.81.235.210 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Browse through his films for more info. Check out I Heart Huckabees, for instance.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I paid good money and sat through that movie, waiting patiently for the laughs that never came. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it was really billed as a "philosophical comedy", that's a sign to "run away!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tootsie comes to mind. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While not a full fledged comedy Little Big Man (film) has many humorous moments. When it comes to Ishtar (film) .... welt funny can be in the eye of the beholder. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "welt funny" may be a good description of Ishtar. StuRat (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Rainman has some hilarious moments Hotclaws (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Swee'Pea?
No doubt someone will tell me this belongs on the talk page of the page in question, but I note in the Popeye article that it claims that Popeye's baby Swee'Pea is a boy. I have been under the impression that Swee'Pea was female ever since I was born and my father gave me that nickname - so I guess he was under that impression too. Can anyone give me a reference for the gender of Swee'Pea please?--TammyMoet (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Although "Swee'pea"/"Swee'Pea"/"Sweetpea"/"Sweet Pea" is a term of affection that is more commonly used toward girls and women, as in the song Sweet Pea, Popeye's Swee'pea is definitely a he boy-kid. John M Baker (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that back in Popeye's day, there was nothing weird about a boy-kid wearing a frilly, silly gown. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I can tell you from looking at baby pictures of my own relatives from a century ago, unless they're labeled you often can't tell if they're boys or girls. Though by age 4 or 5 the boys were usually wearing miniature suits, like Little Lord Fauntleroy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Smash hit new comedy program"
How can TV stations, in good conscience, market upcoming new programs, which by definition nobody but the makers (and perhaps certain critics, and people involved in the marketing) have yet seen, as "hit" or "smash" or any other words that signify actual popularity? Something can't be a "hit" with the viewing public until they've actually seen it and made their own decision. Something can't "smash" ratings or box-office takings or whatever, until it's actually been released and the viewing public have actually seen it. No?

Or is my premise false? Are these new shows shown to selected audiences first, whence come these assessments, before being unleashed to the wider public? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There are often focus groups having a look first. But mostly, pitchmen are bullshit artists. If calling their show a smash hit make it sound watchable, and neither of those words really has a solid definition, it's fair game. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Spiffy, no? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But not relatively spiffy. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And ultimately the public will decide. As Dick Clark said during the Payola hearings, "No amount of hype can turn a dud into a hit." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Kanye West, do you want more examples? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * CM Punk! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On that note, I just read that the worst fight ever was a ratings smasher. Figure that one out, Dick. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Pretty much the same applies in book publishing. As an ex-bookseller, I often saw newly published books being touted as a "bestseller", even having it printed on their dust jackets weeks before their official, embargoed publication date. In fact, they'd be described as such months before publication, when the publishers' sales reps were soliciting me for orders. The fact is, anything can be made at least a temporary bestseller if the publishers spend enough on marketing and publicity. Whether the book actually merits it and becomes a long-term seller is another matter – The Far Pavilions, for example, had a huge marketing push when first published, but one doesn't hear it mentioned much today. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Aren't laws about misleading and deceptive conduct designed to prevent such fraudulent claims?


 * I had The Far Pavilions in my bookshelves for a couple of decades, but never read it. Every time I was looking for something new to read, I'd come upon it but think "No, not today".  I eventually gave it away, as I had tired of its obsessive unreadness.  I hope it was at least worth my having it for all that time; but I'll never know now.  Life is full of mysteries.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Some companies have argued that they can only lie if they're trying to state a fact. If they merely use words and images together while selling their product, and some consumer mistakes those innocent combinations for claims, the consumer should have been more reasonable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Damn them all to hell. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. Simple "puffery".  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Whenever I hear them say "Everyone's talking about X !" I imagine everyone saying "X sucks royally !". StuRat (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In January 1942, Associated Music Publishers was abuzz about how "You Haunt My Heart" was already James Melton's "Hit of the Month" for the March issue of Radio and Television Mirror Magazine. He (nor Lanny Ross) hadn't even sung it yet. They called it "grooming", and this other Jack would probably call StuRat's words "risque" and "destructive". Not sure if I'd call that fizzled hit "smut", but it sure was "crap". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Artists that stick to (pretty much) the same BPM for an entire album
Hi! I am looking for artists that stick to (pretty much) the same BPM for an entire album. For example AMIT - Never Ending. Does anyone know of any other examples? I have scanned over a terabyte of music but I was unable to find any other examples. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's one.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha. I was expecting albums with a BPM above 1, but yeah, this one counts too. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Was the example you gave supposed have the BPM listed? If so, I didn't see them. I don't have the numbers in front of me - and Google is proving unhelpful - but off the top of my head, I would look at The Joshua Tree by U2. In fact, IIRC, a lot of their early stuff had very similar tempos and sounds. Matt Deres (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I used some free software to calculate the BPM. The U2 album has a bit more variation. Of course AMIT - Never Ending is electronic music which makes sticking to the same BPM a lot easier. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I did some quick maths - 30 seconds of silence per track equates to zero BPM. I'm happy for anyone to double-check my workings.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are obviously not a mathematician. You need to take the total amount of time and divide it by the amount of beats. The result is insanity. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Someone asked a member of the very first jazz group to release a recording, theOriginal Dixieland Jazz Band, why several of their early recordings, circa 1917 were at the same tempo. He said there was a flashing light on thew all of the studio, and they were told to match their music its flashing rate with their music, since the studio had chosen it as a good dance tempo.  (Naturally besides this some tunes were very fast (Tiger Rag) and others were very slow  (some blues numbers). Edison (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)