Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/E

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

August 3

Julia Child

Resolved

OK you ED WP geeks: in all the Julia Child "French Chef" PBS series broadcast episodes, why was it that when she stirred or demonstrated to the camera with her right hand with a spoon or whisk, the "above shot" always displayed her stirring / whisking with her "left" hand (in the reverse); even though the front shot revealed that she clearly was demonstrating with her right hand. Maineartists (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could very well just be a mistake. That is, the overhead camera somehow got set into mirror image mode, and nobody noticed or cared enough to set it back. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I didn't say "one episode" ... every episode displays the same "mirror" image. Nice try. Still searching for a definitive answer. Maineartists (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've just watched 'French Onion Soup' on YouTube and both shots showed her stirring with her right hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.221.49 (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find an example of this oddity on youtube? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is on example. The overhead shot must have been using a mirror (unless Julia switches her ring to the other hand every time the angle changes). One possible reason for using a mirror might have been to keep another camera out of the view, see for example this filmmaking forum: "the early cooking shows made extensive use of overhead mirrors at an angle. Just shoot the mirror for the over head shot and there is no 2nd camera in the way. This was when all cooking shows were live audience and I guess it was not cool to have crew running all over the place like you tend to see on all the shows now." ---Sluzzelin talk 11:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not tech savvy enough to post the French Onion Soup video, but it was in black and white, so perhaps it was done before they used mirrors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.221.49 (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct to say that this did not occur in the early Black-and-White series. Only in the later color versions. I am satisfied with the "mirror" explanation. It makes perfect sense! Thanks all! Maineartists (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The French Chef debuted on February 2, 1963. Since studio television cameras at that time were large and heavy, there was no easy way to mount one overhead. The standard procedure was to hang a mirror over the range or table and have one of the cameras (located on the studio floor) shoot into the mirror. -Thomprod (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that cooking shows used mirrors, but it wasn't just to keep the camera out of view. "large and heavy" doesn't really get at how large and how heavy. It was rather dangerous to dangle one of the old cameras above the star as she (or he) was cooking. Many models weighed over 300 pounds. Sitting it on the floor and pointing up at a mirror was a much safer way to get nearly the same shot. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I get it. Horse. Dead. Thank you. Question answered - topic resolved. Maineartists (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check request

Sony Pictures Networks India did indeed bought TEN Sports from Zee Entertainment Enterprises. But did Sony also acquired TEN Sports Pakistan and TEN Cricket International as well, for real? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH-alive: Google "sony acquired TEN Sports Pakistan" and you'll find stuff like [1] and [2]. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 05:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

Tommy Steele sculptor?!

A remark on a Facebook group that the entertainer Tommy Steele had sculpted the statue of Eleanor Rigby in Liverpool, drew me to Steele's Wikipedia page, and there is no mention of it on there. However, a search on "Eleanor Rigby statue" confirms that it is indeed Steele the entertainer who made it. There has to be a way to link the two pages, isn't there? And maybe Steele's own page needs updating with the source quoted? (I would do that last bit myself but I'm not sure how to do that). --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned at Tommy Steele#Personal life and other talents. I've copied the reference from Eleanor Rigby. Rojomoke (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of moving sculpture info to new subsection for convenience. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4890:FAC5:8AED:1CC9 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

Dunkirk

Saw Dunkirk yesterday. Great movie but some things bother me. I think certain elements are at variance with historical accuracy. The row of houses facing the beach looked too modern to me. Of course nothing could be done about it. One snap shot shows a modern skyscraper in the background but not immediately at the beach. I am not sure the number of British soldiers in the movie was large enough to create the impression of the magnitude of what really happened. I've always thought that the beaches were packed. It is a super large beach, BTW, enormous. The number of small private boats showed in the movie is pitifully small, about a dozen or so. There were 800 according to Wikipedia. I wonder if there are different impressions. Great movie nonetheless about the fine hour of Western civilization. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't find a question there. What sort of references do you seek and for what purpose?--Jayron 32 01:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article here complaining about some of the same things you mention. Personally I don't think historical accuracy matters a lot in this context. --Viennese Waltz 07:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it matters some, since the film was going for the realistic approach, it´s not 300: Rise of an Empire we´re talking about. Dunkirk (2017 film) does a fair job of following the spirit of WP:FILMHIST. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There´s some discussion on this at the historical accuracy section in the article.[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

What's it called where?

A human puts their arms through a shirt's sleeves, their head is hidden somewhere, a living dog's head is put through the collar and the human does something (like.. juggling). Does this thing have a name? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would just call it a trick. I don't think this phenomenon has yet garnered enough socio-cultural traction to have a name. --Viennese Waltz 07:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"dog with human arms meme" -- gets plenty of google hits; and, there's a Dogs eating with human hands vine. Know Your Meme simply calls it Human Dog (and traces origin to Sesame Street). — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4176:1674:84F8:476B (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

Was Ralph Kramden a pun on "crammed in" (to their tiny apartment) ?

I of course refer to The Honeymooners. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their apartment wasn't all that "kramped". Their kitchen was remarkably spacious in fact. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of that remarkable spaciousness is due to (big) camera blocking. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4176:1674:84F8:476B (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the actual set might be larger than how it is portrayed. Obviously, there's the lack of a front wall and ceiling, but also they can't have actors bumping into each other and the furniture, so may make it a bit larger and then use camera tricks to make it look the size they had in mind. StuRat (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their "apartment" was most certainly "cramped". That was not their "kitchen" by any means. That was their sole living space: period. The "kitchen" was all inclusive: kitchen, dining room, living quarters: as can be seen in 3 separate pieces of furniture, representing areas: storage bureau, dining table, sink/stove/icebox. It would be considered today as a one-room apartment with a side bedroom / bath. The man standing in front (#2) is the cameraman. That means he represents the 4th wall: only one window. I would consider that very cramped. StuRat I do like that pun. Maineartists (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article does a good job discussing the development of the Honeymooners, but it does not discuss the etymology of the name Ralph Kramden. This book notes that the character was based on an earlier portrayal of Chester A. Riley, the titular character from The Life of Riley, whom Gleason had portrayed earlier in his career. Still no information on the name, but there are at least some sources as to the development of the character. --Jayron 32 12:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible inspiration I found for Kramden was Don Ameche's portrayal of the loudmouth husband on the radio program The Bickersons. In that case, the pun was deliberate. --Jayron 32 12:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

movie ID

What TV show/movie is this at 5:00 of [4]? I think that's Bradley Whitford on the right. Mũeller (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In popular music genres, why are more attention paid to the artists than to the songwriters?

Why do most popular music listeners care more about who performs the song (the artist/performer) than about who wrote the song (the songwriter/composer) when most, if not all, people today care more about the book's author(s) than about the book's publisher? Aquitania (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is completely false. There is no creativity involved in the act of publishing a book that someone else has written, except in the area of illustrations, cover, typeface and so on. The artistic content of a book is entirely the work of its author. On the other hand, performing a song is a creative act – the singer brings the song to life, even if they didn't write it. For those who know a lot about music, such as myself, attention is paid to both the composer and the performer (if they are different people, which they are often not). --Viennese Waltz 11:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is false because in BOTH cases, the public's appreciation is tied closest to the person who is presenting the work in the form consumed. The songs performance is what is being consumed, not the words and notes written on paper. Likewise, for a book, the words on the paper is what is being consumed, not the typography and like. I'd like to provide references to help the OP answer their question, but when faced with a question based on false premises, it is difficult to do so. --Jayron 32 11:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It rather depends on the song. If the lyrics are minimal, like "Oooh yeah" repeated many times, then yes, it's the singer, musicians, and whoever rote the score who deserves the credit for making it entertaining. On the other hand, some lyrics are quite deep, and the writer deserves more credit for the success of those songs. I suppose there are some books where the words are the minor part of the work, with the illustrations being the main selling point. Children's books by Richard Scarry come to mind (where he did both parts): [5]. StuRat (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is not "false"; but more "mis-worded". It should have read the artist's "promoter", not singer / song; in relation to a book and its publisher. Then the analogy would ring true. But I can understand the premise. Now, in addressing the very astute observation that the general public does indeed give more credit to the performer / singer than the songwriter / composer, is indeed true simply because of "ignorance". Patsy Cline will always be associated more with the song "Crazy" and most people will think she even wrote it; even though Willie Nelson did; and Frank Sinatra with "New York, New York" more so than the songwriting team of Kander & Ebb; simply because most people don't know the process of composition / songwriting. The statement that "attention is paid to both the composer and the performer" is an overstatement unless you are speaking from a Classical standpoint where a pianist (Kissin) is playing a composer (Liszt) and one is from that world; or in rock where a Kayne West is dropping his new single. One cannot umbrella all of music in this generalization. The majority of musical genre does not fit the statement: "if they are different people, which they are often not": Jazz, Broadway, Blues, Folk, Pop, etc, do not fit this mold. Give me one Joani Mitchell (singer-songwriter) and I'll give you a dozen Barbra Streisands, Chers, Celine Dions, etc. Likewise, give me one Randy Newman (composer-songwriter) and I'll give you a dozen more George Gershwins, Andrew Lloyd Webbers, etc, etc. Furthermore, the statement: "the artistic content of a book is entirely the work of its author" ... have you ever heard of an editor (contracted by the publisher)? Maineartists (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the use of the pejorative word "ignorant" is useful here, because it feels insulting, but yes, most people don't know who wrote songs. Still, performers are also valuable to the creation of the artform, and are not merely interchangeable recreators of the songwriter or composer's vision. One can easily think of the same song performed by multiple artists where the artists themselves add characteristic creative elements to a work that "make it their own", i.e. Johnny Cash's performance of Trent Reznor's "Hurt", for which Reznor noted that the song didn't belong to him anymore, given Cash's iconic performance of it. There's also the blues-heavy version of "With a Little Help from My Friends" which is Joe Cocker's signature song that deviates greatly from the springy original. The thing is that the process of creation involves multiple people, and there is no one singular creator in most cases. --Jayron 32 12:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ignorant" is one of my favorite words. I apply it every day to things I do not know. It is not derogatory in any way. It simply means: "yet to learn" in this case. That's all. "I am ignorant to that knowledge ... " If you'd rather it say: "uninformed to the fact", I'll change it. Maineartists (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be how you intend to use it. Road to hell, and all. Call someone ignorant to their face, and watch their decidedly non-neutral response. Still, a minor issue overall. --Jayron 32 14:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is so OT. You are now confusing "deliverance" with meaning, and completely out of context. I've used that word several times in intelligent discussions; and have had it used toward me. "That is ignorant to the facts ..." - fair enough. I accept that. But if I were at a formal party and I was standing in the middle of the room in my underwear with a lamp shade on my head singing "Ain't no flies on me!" (who wrote that, BTW?) ... then yes, I would warrant someone coming up to my face and calling me "ignorant" (unsophisticated, uncouth, uneducated to the situation). What's your point here? Apples and oranges. Maineartists (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to why, it's obviously because the performers are more visible, being "up front", while the songwriters are "behind the scenes". This is particularly true during live performances. With studio albums, there's was more of a chance to reverse the trend, say if the songwriter was featured on the cover and the studio musicians were not.

Note that with classical and big band music, it's often the conductor who gets recognition. StuRat (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that there are some books for which the readership is more interested in the publisher than the author: for example Harlequin Romances or the Goosebump series, where readers are attracted by a genre and style embodied by the series, rather than a specific author or title. --Xuxl (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attracting attention is basically part of the on-stage talent's job description. There's no analog in the book-publishing industry. Books are not performative. (At least, not until they're turned into films.) ApLundell (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are book signings, and, for children's books, the author may read it aloud to children. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, most popular music consumers and listeners, most of the time, are attracted to the presentation of a song, rather than its musical or lyrical content. Of course that's a gross over-simplification and there are many counter-examples. But, because most pop music is about presentation, the default position is to want to find out more about a song's presenter (that is, singer) rather than its other creators (who of course include record producers as well as songwriters and lyricists). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, one could argue that the studio engineers (and their counterparts in concerts) deserve most of the credit, as they make songs sound presentable, via studio magic. That is, they take out the lisping S's, deepen the voice, add in some echo, etc., and all of a sudden somebody who can barely sing sounds good. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many producers in their own right now get top billing on recordings, because of the work they do. "Uptown Funk" is notably credited to Mark Ronson and not Bruno Mars. There are many other celebrity producers that have started getting similar top-level credit, such as Danger Mouse (musician), David Guetta, etc. Even musicians such as Dr. Dre or Pharrell Williams, who are frontmen in their own right, are better known for their production work than their vocals. So, it is definitely changing in the past decade or so. --Jayron 32 15:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't all fake. Phil Spectre did some amazing production work in the studio long before Disney autotuned the hell out of popular music. I know that Paul McCartney disagrees, but the other three Beatles loved his work and continued to work with him. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aks(2001 film)

I am Angry becuz I forgot that I watched this film a long time ago.

1. Did Raghavan's dead body get burnt into ashes before the spirit entered Manu's body?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)).[reply]