Entertainment desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

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.

May 10[edit]

Looking for a cartoon[edit]

When I was little, my family had a VHS taped from the US version of the Disney Channel (c. 1990) featuring mostly cartoons, and I think this is where I saw the cartoon in question, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm looking for a cartoon with the following elements:

A character is on the floor
A puddle of some light-colored liquid (milk? water?) is lying on the floor (either it comes to be there, or it was already there; I'm not sure) near the character
Small light-colored songbirds (canaries, I think, but not 100% sure) arise out of the liquid
The canaries start flying around, and the character swallows one or more of them

I'm pretty sure that these elements are in the middle of the cartoon, not at the start or at the end. The bit about the character swallowing the canary/canaries I'm particularly uncertain; there's a chance that my mind could have mingled it with the hungriness of Donald's Ostrich, which was also on this video. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not from Fantasia, is it? The Sorcerer's Apprentice part? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the birds indicating the character has been hit on the head (perhaps after slipping on the liquid on the floor)? If so, swallowing them sounds like the kind of thing Donald Duck might do. Indeed, I might have seen the very same cartoon, but it would have been a long time ago and I don't remember the title. Astronaut (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen any of the Fantasia series as far as I know, and pretty sure not the Sorcerer's Apprentice. I think that the birds are "real", not figments of Donald's imagination. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No late admissions" in theaters at present[edit]

The film Psycho was notorious for having a policy where no one would be allowed to enter the cinema once the film had started. This was an order from Alfred Hitchcock himself because he didn't want people to not enjoy the film's plot twists. Although it was not the first instance of this practice (an earlier film did it as well), it is perhaps the most famous. But do some films still do it today? Which notable post-Psycho films followed the practice, especially those from the 21st century? Did the practice catch on after Psycho, or did it die out after? The last time I went to a theater, about two or three years ago, even latecomers could come and watch the movie. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of this policy since Psycho, which is not to say that it hasn't been implemented. However, at the time of Psycho it was very common for moviegoers to start watching in the middle of the movie and simply stay until the same point in the next showing (hence the saying "This is where we came in," although I think the blog is wrong in suggesting that Psycho put an end to it). That is no longer a common practice, so there is less need of a policy to forbid late arrivals. John M Baker (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard of the policy, as such, either but have run into a few occasions where the theater will stop selling tickets for a show once it starts. The computer terminals that the ticket sellers use simply won't allow them to sell a ticket for a show time that has already passed. At least that's the explanation I have heard given. Dismas|^(talk) 14:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely it is a business decision. Theaters want every customer they can get, so they are not about to turn anyone away. Also, with multiplexes and crowds flowing through ticket booths almost constantly, ticket sellers must keep a steady pace, not stopping to restrict someone. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even when Psycho was first released, it made no sense to me how the director of the film could apparently ordain what the admission practices of the cinemas would be, even in the country where the film was made, let alone anywhere else. Directors simply don't have that power. Films don't have policies (and neither can a TV program be "brought to you by" any particular film, but don't get me started there). Cinemas have their policies on admissions, but no way would they ever take their orders from the directors or producers of the films they're showing. The Psycho thing was simply a marketing device to ramp up the suspense factor; Hitchcock never had the power or the least intent of trying to enforce it anywhere, and I'm sure there would have been many people who were let in after the movie started. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a marketing gimmick. Hitchcock's mother didn't raise no dummies. In reference to the movie itself, it is important to watch it from the beginning in order to fully grasp the context. But that could be said for almost any movie, especially suspense/thriller stories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side question[edit]

Is it no longer a standard thing to do, coming in in the middle and staying till the same point in the next showing, because there is so much time between showings these days? If you include all the (pointless to me as a viewer) credits, the cleaning of the theater, the commercials, and previews before the film, that's quite a bit of time. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 30 - 45 minutes between the last action of the previous film and the first action of the next. That's a lot of time to sit and wait. Were theaters normally cleaned between showings back then? I know credits were shorter. Dismas|^(talk) 14:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdote, sample size of one - I went to see The Avengers the other night and was waiting until the final post-credit scene; other patrons were coming in while the credits were still rolling. --LarryMac | Talk 15:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe buying a ticket allows you to see only the showing stated on the ticket. That seat (whether allocated on the ticket or not) will be sold to another patron for the next showing. Astronaut (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way they did movies in the "this is where we came in" era was different. It wasn't just a single film shown. In between showings of the main film (or multiple main films) they played shorts. These ranged from animation (this was where Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse originally debuted) to news items (e.g. Movietone News). Like today, they're was probably half an hour to an hour between showings, but they were filled with short films, rather than a black screen, so it wasn't a case of "sit and wait". -- 71.217.8.17 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with John M Baker above about people arriving in the middle of a film and leaving at the same point in the next showing. My parents did this when they took me to the cinema in the 1960s and I remember thinking that it was a very unsatisfactory way of watching a film, but I suppose it meant that you didn't need to worry about what time it started. Alansplodge (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that some theaters are reluctant to sell you a ticket once the film is well underway, but that could just be to avoid getting the other patrons irritated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the question arises: Why would anyone ever want to pay good money to see a movie knowing they've missed out on a good chunk of it, which may well include crucial early plot details and connections without which the rest of the movie would not make much sense? Why would anyone pay for a predictably unsatisfactory experience? Unless, maybe, their agenda is to use the theatre to get their satisfaction in other ways (wink, nudge). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have sometimes arrived at movies late, and it is certainly not the optimal way to do things. The only reason I can think of to do it deliberately is if you've already seen it and for some reason you just want to watch the second half of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EA Cricket North America[edit]

How come EA Cricket never get to be sold in North America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.50 (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the people who follow cricket in North America are a tiny, tiny number; to the point where the cost of producing the game for the North American market would be prohibitive. EA does sell the game in countries where it expects people to actually buy it in numbers that make it worth their while. If you live in North America, and wish to get it, I believe you can purchase it online. --Jayron32 19:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, EA's NCAA Football and Sony's MLB: The Show are, to my understanding, unavailable outside of North America. I recall the latter being a particular sore point for a UK games journalist who, despite not being a huge baseball fan, regarded a recent iteration as the best sports game ever made. Fortunately in that case the PS3 can play imports, but that's not really relevant to EA Cricket. AJ Cham 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Movie with "Stone in Focus" by Aphex Twin[edit]

I remember seeing a movie once that had the song "Stone in Focus" by Aphex Twin as part of its soundtrack, but I can't remember which movie it was. Does anyone know which movie it is? Thanks. 138.16.42.247 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page it has been used in a video game, is that what you're thinking of? click here

Nope. Definitely not a video game. It was either a movie or a TV show. 138.16.42.247 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth has used it in his short films before, I think. Do you remember anything about the context? Great song, btw. Recury (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

closed caption feature on TV[edit]

Does anybody check how accurate is the so called "closed caption" on TV shows? Most of the time, it does not make any sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.65.110 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, cc is typically riddled with spelling errors and often has just the plain wrong words. Sometimes, though, it's very accurate; I think they sometimes pre-write the cc, but not for things like live TV or sports shows. I believe they typically have stenographers writing the cc in real time, but, at least in court, when stenographers write something, they pretty much always have to go back and correct errors that arise from certain shorthand words being ambiguous (usually they can easily be corrected by looking at the context) and the inherent difficulty in shorthand of trying to capture something phonetic, like a name. 138.16.42.247 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about this before. I've seen several types of errors:

1) Nothing but random characters in the captions. To me this means something got messed up in sending the signal.

2) Machine-errors, like "I'll see you tonight" becoming "All she he tone wight". These can be amusing.

3) Human-errors, like "I have the munchies", while a character grabs food from the freezer, becoming "I have the mung cheese". It still sort of makes sense.

4) Then the most interesting case is where the CC goes off the script, and the final cut deviated from the script. You can get a real insight into the creative process by seeing what the characters originally said.

5) The closely related subtitles case is also interesting, where, if you have a foreign language film dubbed in English, with English subtitles, you often get two entirely different translations between the two. You'd think this would be prohibitively expensive, but apparently not.

6) Then there's things they do which are intentional, like shortening a wordy diatribe to have it fit in the CC. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7) When a character briefly speaks a foreign language (which is not subtitled in the actual movie) and the CC simply reads [speaking French]. A deaf person might be bilingual and enjoy the dialogue, just as a hearing person would. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 01:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few anecdotes about closed captioning: While on most pre-taped programs the captioning is reasonably accurate, live shows can have problems. Sometimes the captioner just doesn't recognize the word being spoken, such as during Mother Teresa's funeral, when a speaker said, "Mother gave her dal and bread," and the captions read, "Mother gave her some bread." Or they can't spell it, like when Mark McGwire was accused of taking androstenedione. The captions just called it "andro". And I've seen on Sesame Street that the dialogue is often simplified in the captions, presumably because the target audience wouldn't be able to read as fast as the performers talk. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't just apply to children. Adults can also talk faster than they can type and read, especially when they all talk at once. Hence my item number 6. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've more than once seen the word "traduced" rendered in captioning as "reduced", presumably because it's not a word in the the captioner's vocabulary. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biological hypotheses of vampirism[edit]

This website gives a nice list of biological hypotheses of the origin of vampirism, however it doesn't give any sources. And I don't think they have been made up by just some blog author because if you google them you will be get quite a number of hits. Does anyone know the origin of these "theories" -- perhaps some fictional work? (I am well aware that these "theories" are pure fiction, which is why I am asking this question on this entertainment reference desk.) Thanks in advance. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porphyria has a bit of reading for you. --Jayron32 03:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it actually is just a small part of the hypotheses. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The later parts of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel Låt den rätte komma in attempts a partial biological explanation of the effects of the ficticious infectious agent responsible for vampirism. Astronaut (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]