Entertainment desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 18[edit]

Avatar vs. Avatar[edit]

How come James Cameron was allowed to call his 2009 film Avatar when there was already an animated TV series of that name (to which the Cameron film is unrelated)? I find it hard to believe that the makers of the TV show didn't have some kind of rights or option to the name. When they came to make their own film, they had to rename it The Last Airbender in order to avoid confusion with the Cameron flick. But if Cameron hadn't stolen their title, they wouldn't have needed to. --Viennese Waltz 07:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the disambig page Avatar (disambiguation) there's also a film from 1914, a Singaporean (?) film from 2004 too. This article may be of interest to you (http://troygould.com/layouts/50/graphics/handel_la_lawyer.pdf). The gist seems to be that if it's the title of a single movie then it cannot be trademarked whereas if it's a series it can. ny156uk (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Avatar (2009 film), development on Cameron's movie began in 1994, with references to the title going back at least to 1996; so the film's development predates the TV show Avatar: The Last Airbender, which aired 2005-2008.

Please don't accuse James Cameron of crimes he didn't commit; he's very litigious and probably scans Wikipedia regularly for mentions of his name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright in titles of artworks anyway:

How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo?

"Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark." μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can sue if a competing work is too similar to yours. See Great White (film), for example. If Great White had stolen the title "Jaws" as well as the plot, Universal no doubt would have had an even stronger case. But I think unrelated films with the same title are not uncommon. See Twilight (1998 film), Carrie (1952 film), Crash (1974 film), Crash (1978 film), Crash (1996 film), etc. I'm surprised there's not a Wikipedia list of unrelated films that share names. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not even; at least with song titles, there are MANY songs with identical titles, I remember back there were three songs named "Creep" on the radio at the same time. Creep (Radiohead song), Creep (TLC song) and Creep (Stone Temple Pilots song) were all in pretty heavy rotation my senior year of high school. --Jayron32 03:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean (theme park ride)[edit]

Presumably the Disney ride pre-dated the first film and the music for the ride was based on Handel's Water Music, Suite No 2 in D Alla hornpipe. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a question? --LarryMac | Talk 13:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Are the presumptions correct? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the PotC(tpr) article, the original was completed in 1967, so clearly it predates the first film. I personally do not hear any similarity between the ride's theme song and the Handel work. --LarryMac | Talk 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Maurice Richard Trophy winners before -98[edit]

Anyone knows a source for NHL goal-scoring leaders before Maurice Richard Trophy was Established (-99)? I need at least one source for fi-wikipedia article ;)-Henswick (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_yearly.html. Hope this helps. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps very much! :)-Henswick (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film Revenue over Time[edit]

Is there any data for movies that shows their annual revenue (including DVD/VHS releases) over time? It doesn't matter what movie, but I'd love to be able to see, for example, how much a move like Jurassic Park made in the year of its release and for n subsequent releases. --CGPGrey (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo. --Viennese Waltz 13:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has all-time numbers, but I need to see that data broken down by year. --CGPGrey (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. It ought to be somewhere, since the studios are so assiduous in helping us by reporting the dollar-accurate box office figures. the-numbers.com keeps week by week #s for movies but not quite what you want. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheers is filmed before a live studio audience."[edit]

On the topic of laugh tracks, I'm kind of curious as to how you could have laughter in a sitcom without a laugh track. Anyone who's ever seen anything filmed knows they shoot the same scene multiple times. Even with a multi-camera set, you'd have times when someone flubbed a line and the scene would have to be reshot. And they presumably didn't always shoot everything in the same order it appeared in the show. I can't imagine audiences would laugh too hard if they were seeing the same scene for the third time or if they hadn't yet seen the part of the episode that explains why what they're seeing at the time is funny. A laugh track would be essential in such situations. So was there ever really a point to filming Cheers or Friends or Happy Days in front of an audience other than giving the appearance that a laugh track was not needed? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, live studio audience, but it's short and not very informative yet. You have a point. The studio audience is miked with their own mikes that hang above the audience, so I would figure that if it's take #3, you'd mix the audio from take #3 with the audience reaction from take #1. I think some other reasons for a live audience are that a live audience just sounds less phony than a canned laugh track, and, rarely, that the audience reaction itself may add to humor, like on The Carol Burnett Show with all the goofing they did, or on any late night TV show, where the comics can react with mock indignation if the audience doesn't laugh much. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live recordings commonly use warm-up people (e.g. [1]), whose job is to fill in interruptions in the filming, talking to the audience, telling jokes, and generally keeping a fun atmosphere and stopping people getting bored. If the warm-up man is sufficiently good the audience will be in hysterics regardless what is happening on stage. (I've also heard rumors of TV shows providing alcohol to their audiences.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR, to confirm the rumours: I went to a recording of the first series of Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle, and we were entertained in a free bar for about an hour while waiting. There was a limit of three drinks, I think (we were given tokens of some kind), but what constituted "a drink" seemed to be up to the discretion of the bar staff: e.g. a pint of beer or a double measure of spirits. In contrast, at a recording of QI we queued outside for a long time and eventually were led straight into the auditorium (but fortunately the warm-up man was very funny).AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from a UK perspective, the things above may be used. But it doesn't hide the fact there is a lot less laughing on British comedies (as far as I know, all without laugh tracks). I think this is why British people notice laugh tracks the most. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe British comedies are just not funny? --Jayron32 12:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're fired. Vespine (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR: I attended a taping of The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour at CBS Television City in Los Angeles in 1973. During rehearsals, the performers would read their lines and insert nonsense words for the jokes or punchlines. This was done so that the audience did not know what the exact dialogue would be until the scene was performed again for the "live take". This resulted in a more genuine reaction from the audience. Occasionally, there would be some flub during the first take and a second one was required. The audience was asked to respond in the same way as they had on the first take, so as to keep the laughter or applause consistant. --Thomprod (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar and Musical Notation[edit]

I'm trying to compose pieces (one for bass guitar and another for regular electric guitar), and in order to see how well it goes with the piece for keyboard for the same song, I have to use virtual instruments, which only have regular notation. However, as my friend, who actuallly has a wide knowledge of reading music, pointed out, guitar music isn't written in regular music notation. So, how should I go about writing just a strum in regular musical notation? 108.69.212.222 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, much guitar music is written in regular notation: most classical guitar pieces and some "serious" rock music is available in that form. There are, as you say, more simple forms of notation available for the less adept at formal notation, such as tablature (and for the record I can only cope (sometimes) with the latter, and rarely with the former beyond beginners' exercise level).

In regular notation, a strum is written in the same way as (since it actually is) a chord (not an arpeggio, which thoug a chord is not played as a strum) for other multi-tone instruments like the piano - that is, (see here Note value) a single stave line (unless it's a whole note chord) with the appropriate heads (the "dots") on each note of the chord: the heads and, if necessary, the flags, will indicate how long the chord will be held after the strum, and other ancilliary codifications are available.

In my neck of the woods, most large newsagents carry several different monthly magazines which include transcriptions of rock pieces for study and reproduction - buy a couple, especially with pieces you have recordings of, and you can easily learn some specialised guitar notations in more detail. There are probably books available in or through local libraries that cover the same ground. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I'm assuming you can't use just any random chord, so which chord should I use? 108.69.212.222 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the chords that you wrote the song with (A, B, Ebm, etc.) If you aren't sure which chords you are using (learned to play guitar by ear might explain that), then you likely won't be able to write the music down at all. We can't tell you that part: it's your song. Mingmingla (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I told you what I want... I want just a strum, that is, without having any of the strings held down... 108.69.212.222 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all 6 strings are open, that isn't a standard chord. See Standard_tuning#Plucked_strings for the standard guitar tuning. Each string is chromatic, so as you move up each fret on a single string, you go up by a semitone (the bottom string therefore goes E (open)-F (1st fret)-F# (2nd fret) and so on. Guitar chords are usually classified as open chord or a barre chord. An open chord is one that requires at most one string per finger, a barre chord requires at least one finger to hold down multiple strings, usually by "barring" across all 6 strings. The standard "open" major triad chords on a guitar are A-C-D-G-E (all of the others require a barre to make) and form the basis for what is known as the CAGED system. I know of very few songs that make use of only open strings on a guitar, and none are strummed. The most famous is probably the main riff of "Nothing Else Matters" by Metallica. --Jayron32 01:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So while all the strings left open isn't a standard chord (it is a chord called A11 if you leave out the 6th string, it's just not very nice.), the notes themselves have names. Assuming you are tuned the standard way, they are E-A-D-G-B-E. Mingmingla (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an A11 if you leave the bottom E in as well, just an inverted A11 (notated A11/E). --Jayron32 02:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, 108, that what you mean by "strum" does not quite correspond to what we understand by strum. Does that article help at all? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]