Entertainment desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 18 >

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.

December 17[edit]

Renee Richards[edit]

Hi I want to write an article about Uk Porn-star Renee Richards Who recently won Girl of the Year award at the UK Adult Film and Television Awards. As there is already a page regarding another famous Renee Richards, it does not give me the option to write a new article about the pornstar Renee. How is it possible to produce this new article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesspassiton (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make the article title slightly different. I think the standard affix is something like Renee Richards (porn star). That link should be red and allow you to edit. Make sure you have reliable sources to reference your article. Matt Deres (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a good idea to tie the two articles together with "hatnotes", as I've just done using the {{for}} template. If there were more than two people of the same name with Wikipedia articles, creating a separate page titled "Renee Richards (disambiguation)" would be a better choice and then you would make the hatnotes all link to that, probably using a different template. --Anonymous, 21:32 UTC, December 17, 2008.

michael jackson[edit]

why is it that even though Michael jackson was found not guilty of touching the kids, people still assume he did it? Wochende (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because society tends to prefer scandal to truth when the truth isn't as interesting... Gazhiley (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't mistake acquittal for innocence. Tomdobb (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it's because no adult heterosexual man would want to sleep in bed with a boy (at least not related to him). I get frequent hard-ons in the middle of the night and the idea that some boy might notice it or accidentally rub against it totally grosses me out. I should also point out that I'm a long time MJ fan. Thriller was the first album I ever bought, I memorized the dance moves in the video and own ever single MJ album and Jacksons album released over the last 30 years and greatest hits albums for the music before that. I still listen to his music, but I certainly think he's guilty. I rationalize it with myself on the grounds that just because someone is a pervert doesn't mean they don't have any artistic talent. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, without the artistic contributions of pervs, we'd be without the films of Roman Polanski, the books of Lewis Carroll, and the paintings of Paul Gauguin. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They had an interesting discussion about this on newsnight where adult men sharing with boys was defended ( I can't remember on why grounds annoyingly). In any case, Its a shame that someone can be accused of something so horrendous and despite having been acquitted, still be 'deemed' guilty in the public conscience. makes me wonder why we bother with the 'whole trial by jury' thing.. 82.22.4.63 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because a criminal trial in the US does not determine guilt. It determines whether the prosecution can prove guilt. Further, the standard by which is proving beyond a reasonable doubt, not preponderance of the evidence. So a jury can feel that a defendent is probably guility, but still acquit. It's also important to note that a jury never rules that someone is innocent, only not guilty. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but that still proves my point doesn't it? 12 ordinary men and women, having seen all the evidence and heard all the arguments, believe there is insufficient evidence to prove someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Yet joe public, having read a few tabloid stories, thinks he has all the evidence he needs to assume guilt or, as you put it, "certainly think he's guilty". Like i said, I wonder why we bother...82.22.4.63 (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're incorrect to assume that people simply drew that conclusion from "a few tabloid stories". Jackson's trial was highly publicized and covered by numerous reliable sources on a daily basis for the entire length of the trial. You should note that OJ Simpson (also highly covered by reliable sources) was found not guilty by the standard of reasonable doubt (in the criminal trial) and guilty by preponderance of the evidence (in the civil trial). Joe Public is free to set whatever standards they like. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, think that the most important factor that determines whether you're found guilty in court is how wealthy and famous you are, not your actual guilt. An illegal immigrant who doesn't speak the language or have any money can be convicted of murder and sent to death row because he vaguely matches the description and was found within 10 miles of the crime. Meanwhile, a celebrity can commit just about any crime and be acquitted, if it even makes it to court. The one positive note on the acquittal of Jackson and Simpson is that it shows the system isn't racist, except in that minorities are more likely to be poor, and thus be convicted without a fair trail. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case in particular, the jurors based their decision on the evidence: A man with a 3-floor bedroom (larger than many large houses) invited boys to stay the night in a slumber party. He had multiple beds in his bedroom, but most boys preferred the big bed - one that is larger than a large bedroom and easily sleeps dozens of people without touching. The public, on the other hand, based their decision on the tabloids - a man had a boy in his bed. -- kainaw ™ 18:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like he didn't have the money to be able to afford a bed for himself (at least back then). So then, it comes down to him making the choice to sleep in the same bed with unrelated boys. Not normal at all. Then there's also his other bizarre behavior to consider, from the extreme plastic surgery to the baby dangling. StuRat (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael Jackson is an example of social mobility in America. He went from a poor, black boy to a rich, white woman." StuRat (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Batman & Robin wasn't successful?[edit]

Why? 200.50.33.55 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because people didn't like it? Really, in simplistic terms, that is what makes a movie successful or not. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budget of $140 million, and worldwide box office take of $240 million. Why do you consider this to not be successful? --Onorem ♠Dil 14:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film's article actually has a lot of information on this. Give the Release section a look. Tomdobb (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bat-nipples, Bat-butts and Bat-crotches. Kreachure (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas medley containing "While Shepards Watched" AND "Hark the Herald Angels Sing"[edit]

Which Christmas song includes the lines “While Shepherds watched their flocks by night” and “Hark the herald angels sing”? Perhaps there was a medley by someone? 195.167.178.194 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well "While Shepherds Watched Their Flocks" and "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" are both full Christmas songs in their own right. Regarding medleys of Christmas songs, there is long tradition of mixing and merging Christmas carols into medleys. Usually this is so unremarkable as not to warrant a specific title, rather being referred to simply as "Medley of (French/English/Traditional/etc.) Christmas Carols". It happens with such regularity that I wouldn't be surprised if there was three or four different medleys which incorporated both "Shepherds Watched" and "Hark". Unless you have further information about the particular medley you're thinking of, it is unlikely that we'll be able to narrow it down. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could possibly be a medley by Trans-Siberian Orchestra, which is known for repackaging several christmas songs into a single tune. For example, their most popular tune is probably Christmas Eve/Sarajevo 12/24 which is a medley of God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen and Carol of the Bells. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for dark comedy film[edit]

Hi, I'm looking for a dark comedy film from early to mid-90s about a couple driving around trying to dispose of a middle-aged lady's body. They try to throw the body from a bridge, bury it, and other things, but every time the body returns to them through quirky circumstances. That's all the info I have on it. Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Enid is Sleeping ? 93.96.152.255 (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Throw Momma from the Train starring Danny DeVito and Billy Crystal?~~ Come to think of it, probably not. Astronaut (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably "Enid is Sleeping". I'll check that one out, thanks. Kreachure (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]