Entertainment desk
< January 27	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 29 >

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.

January 28[edit]

About the Prince of Persia 2008 games...[edit]

When I read the Elika abandoned the third Prince in Prince of Persia: Epilogue, a question came to my mind: is Elika still mad at the third Prince as she stayed with the Ahura, even when the third Prince had driven Ahriman out of the kingdom in Prince of Persia: the Fallen King? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirdrink13309622 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wir hatten eine gute Zeit[edit]

What is the meaning behind the Wise Guys song "Wir hatten eine gute Zeit" (text)? I originally thought it was a break-up song, but then I realized it's second person plural: ihr and euch rather than du. Why? Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 01:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to contact those who wrote the song ? It seems interesting that people can comment on another's writings, and make assumptions that are not what the original author or authors intended, but seem to be. Indeed, we have the word ihr, so that it appears the one telling the story in song is speaking to more than one person he knows well. Could it be a father or mother talking to their spouse and children ? Or a boyfriend to his girl and her child, whom he had come to know ? Or, as he says , if God will let him, is he an angel, or a priest ? Again, nothing definite. Imagine also, after all these years, when people said that Puff the Magic Dragon was about the weed, that it is revealed that it never was. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My German is a little rusty, but isn't ihr also the formal second person singular? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, in German, the third person plural is the formal voice: Sie haben (the Sie is alway capitalized) and not ihr habt. --Xuxl (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're a German maven. To me, the song (as shown translated into English) is a typical, "We've fallen out of love and now I'm leaving" kind of song. Would you read it differently? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it seems like, but in German there are different words when speaking to one person or multiple people. In the song the you forms are plural. Christopher has good ideas, but the song just doesn't say. I guess you'd have to be familiar with the song/band to know, so there's not much use in interpreting. Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the German Wikipedia, and I think they said it was about the departure of the former lead singer Clemens Tewinkel. [1] Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the song is really putting words in the departed singer's mouth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That or it was his final song before leaving. Reywas92^Talk 23:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at the gala[edit]

I could always be misunderstanding her expression here, but she looks to me like she might be a little unhappy, and I'm guessing it might be either because she got hit with a water balloon, or because she's wearing a dress that makes her look like she got hit with a water balloon. I'm not saying the dress doesn't look very very good on her, I'm just questioning her expression while trying not to make a statement concerning how good she looks in the dress. Maybe if I make fun of her picture, that could make myself feel better in some way, since looking at this picture of her gives me a sad feeling or something for some reason. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, since the picture is a single instant, there is no way to read her emotion with any reliability. She may have been caught pre-smile, or in the process of smiling, or snifling a sneeze, or anything else. We have no idea how she feels, and especially how she feels about her clothes. And opinions on fashion aren't realy the purview of these reference desks anyways. --Jayron32 05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's part of the Entertainment industry. Maybe there's some weird facts about her somewhere that I could be missing. I mean, she's good in those movies she's in, but she's always different. Is she a reclusive star? I really know nothing about her. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her article would be a good place to start to learn about her. What are you really after? If you want an explanation for her facial expression, you've been given one. Why pursue this? Do you have more reasons you've not told us about? Vimescarrot (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article. My problem is I'm always wanting to know something about something without having to study it too hard. I just think it's incredible that her very first movie is a major film where she is the starring actress opposite Gary Oldman's bad guy of that film. I think she should've been the Fifth Element, although she might not have been the right age for that part at the time. Considering her character in Léon though, the scantily clad Leeloo might not have been too much of a reach for her. As it happened, Corbin Dallas calls her perfect, and I'm thinking to myself, "With that orange hair?" --Neptunerover (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're just trying to discuss her in general. There are forums out there for that kind of thing, I'm sure. That's not what this is for. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I did mention it anyway, this is too strange to not be mentioned now: Upon reading the 'critical response' section of the Léon_(film) article, I realize the two movies I mentioned had the same director, to wit, "Director Luc Besson was pleased with the performance, leading to his hiring Oldman for 1997's The Fifth Element". I wonder if he offered Leeloo to Natalie Portman first, whereby she may have turned it down due to the some of the criticism pointed at her over her innocent sexiness as Mathilda in the first movie. Hey, I found some interview with her linked from her article, and I bet if I watch that I could learn even more. This encyclopedia thing idea here is pretty cool. --Neptunerover (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you tell me what this is for, since the top of the page doesn't specify what questions are allowed, as far as I can tell. Thanks. (incidentally, I'm not trying to start a debate, and if there is to be one concerning what is allowed here, my suggestion would be that such a debate take place elsewhere, since this reference desk is not the place for debates.) --Neptunerover (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk here is like a real world library reference desk. We can help find answers to questions of a factual basis. We don't do opinions and this isn't a discussion forum. After reading your first post, I was confused as to what you were trying to find out. There isn't a single question in the rambling paragraph and only by mousing over the link did I have any idea of which "she" you were talking about. So, next time you might want to be a bit more clear about what it is that you'd like to know. As for what she was thinking or feeling when that photo was taken, we likely can't answer that. Dismas|^(talk) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...always wanting to know something about something without having to study it too hard." Sounds like he's headed for a career in politics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be "always wanting to have an opinion on something without knowing anything about it" :-) DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My error. I should have said, "...a career in management." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No,no,no, you mistook me. I meant actually wanting to know about things, not just act like I know or care about things. It's a subtle difference. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postings in small mean offtopic or joke. Joke in this case. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry if my joke wasn't good enough.--Neptunerover (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not consider myself to be asking about anything other than that which would be considered verifiable. If I express a personal opinion about liking something, well I hope that's not considered debating. I find the Internet in general to be quite a maze and a zoo. I dislike being assaulted by advertising and idiots. My hope on the reference desks here is to avoid both. I do a lot of writing, and in conducting my research I find some ways are better than others. When posing a query on a reference desk, I never know what kind of obscure thing someone might tell me about something that I might never have known or been able to find without an arduous search of my own (or perhaps by asking somewhere else, but I consider it likely to be sane coming from here, is the thing). No matter how 'bitterly' I may fight against something being deleted as long as the reason behind the need for deletion is not made clear to me, I am completely willing to admit that some of my queries might be better than others. My previous question about the movies provided a goldmine of information for me. I deal in general ideas, and when people can point me to specifics, it is quite helpful to me. This whole idea of facial expression, I find intriguing. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facial expressions and the subjective feeling they can 'cause' in others, I suppose might be more apt of a question for the psychology desk. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point was made earlier that you can't draw any conclusions from a single photograph. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so you are repeating it. Thank you. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I recommend you watch A Hard Day's Night. There's a short segment in there somewhere that shows a bunch of different facial expressions for George. It turns out that he was simply changing his expression rapidly while the photographer was snapping rapidly. You might also want to take any film, and go frame-by-frame, and see how rapidly expressions change from one second to the next. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you more. I've not seen A Hard Day's Night. Out of curiosity, the label British Comedy came up for it on a summary Google search, and I'm thinking the Monkeys, and it worries me a little. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean The Monkees? They might have covered the song, or had a TV episode with that title, but I'm talking about the Beatles' film. Of which, by the way, the entire thing appears to be on youtube, broken into several segments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Errol Morris's fascinating essays on interpreting photographs. Pepso2 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my poor spelling. I meant the Monkees (TV series). But now that I go to the link, I see that was an American Show, and they were originally a fictional band. Boy was I confused on that. I thought they were another British band. --Neptunerover (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done with this question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Monkees TV series started out as kind of a satire of the Beatles, but the group, or at least some of them, were pretty good musicians and they had a number of hit songs that still get airplay on those American Top 40 nostalgia shows. A little bit like with the 1950s group, The Diamonds, whose song "Little Darlin'" was supposed to be a satire of the bop era with falsettos and overemoted lyrics, and turned out to be a huge hit. I guess we're straying a bit from your original question. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Little Darlin'" by the Diamonds! I had no idea that song was supposed to be a satire. I think that song is awesome. Thanks for letting me know. =) --Neptunerover (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As my work colleagues have often told me, I am a veritable font of nearly-useless information. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more accurate, according to the article on "Little Darlin'", it was originally written as a straight song (more or less), for another group and then The Diamonds recorded it in an exaggerated style. It reminds me a little bit, in a generic way, of Spike Jones recording of "You Always Hurt the One You Love", which has three distinct segments, the first of which is an almost perfect mimicry of The Ink Spots' style. Well, we're really getting off track here - we bounced from The Gala to The Hop, it seems. Which reminds me - do you say GAY-luh, or GAL-uh? If it's the latter, I've got an additional trivia note. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I go both ways, depending on how I wish to use the term. When it's concerning an entertainment event as with M. Portman above, I say Gay-luh. Gal-luh I think more of as that which might be suitable for an event, with the occurrence of such event having no bearing upon its suitability for one. In that way I am thinking of it as a characteristic. There's an album by Lush named Gala, and I don't call it GAY-luh. (I use the 'Gomer Pyle pronunciation') --Neptunerover (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)(meaning "Ga" as in "Gaaw-aawl-ly") --Neptunerover (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why I asked. From Duck Soup:

Mrs. Teasdale (Margaret Dumont): Notables from every country are gathered here in your honor. This is a gala day for you.

Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx): Well, a gal a day is enough for me. I don't think I could handle any more.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so you point out another pronunciation I hadn't considered previously while misinterpreting one of your pronunciations. What I meant rather than gal-luh was more like gahl-luh, like the 'ahl' sound in 'holiday.' --Neptunerover (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to point that out. --Neptunerover (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're just full of gratitude today. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people bring out the best in me. =) --Neptunerover (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you say GAY-luh, or GAL-uh" - you asked that, Bugs, as if those were the only 2 pronunciations. A very large number of people say GAH-la, to rhyme (non-rhotically) with Mahler, nothing like HOL-iday. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to spell a pronunciation. When Madonna sings her song Holiday, I say she's got gala, and it rhymes for me (the 'ol' part equaling the 'al' part, then followed by an 'uh'. --Neptunerover (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That pronunciation I would spell GAH-luh. But that gets into matters of the way Yanks and Brits say things in general. Brits are more inclined to say a short a the "Latin" way, like an "ah" sound. Yanks are more apt to say a short a... well, the Yank way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a natural expression rather than those idiotic fixed Mickey-Mouse grins that celebs usually have. Well done for giving herself some depth of feeling and character, and to suggesting to the great unwashed that even celebs have their off moments. 92.24.73.102 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine her to be possibly overwhelmed by tedium, as events like that can be tedious for those involved. Wanting to be somewhere else than in the public spotlight evidences a quality star, I think. Remaining pleasant in the face of tedium is a sign of wisdom. --Neptunerover (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the cast members from MTV's "The Real World" color-coded in their Wikipedia entries?[edit]

Why are the cast members from the MTV show "The Real World" color-coded in the cast charts on Wikipedia? What do the different colors stand for, if anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.219.57 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to a specific article where you're seeing that? I'm not seeing it in the main article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The individual season articles use color-coding; eg, The Real World: Washington D.C. But I don't know why; there's no legend. Zagalejo^^^ 07:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP could ask Neutralis (talk · contribs), as that's who created the colorful list in that article last July. The user still shows as being active. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They names of the cast members are color coded in the pages for individual seasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.219.57 (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw after Zag pointed it out. If no one has asked Neutralis yet, I reckon I will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralis got back to me. In his case, at least, he just chose colors that he thought looked nice. He had seen the idea on other shows. But there's no particular reasoning behind it otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon Flux: The Eyelashes and The Fly[edit]

What are the eyelashes and the fly supposed to mean? The symbolism just seems to mean something.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess may be as good as mine. A Venus Flytrap cannot see, yet a human eye cannot usually catch flies. It could represent extreme reflexes along the lines of the Karate Kid where catching a fly with a pair of chopsticks is the symbol used. --Neptunerover (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always assumed it was po-mo, but I never really watched the show, so gave it little thought. this discussion mentions an interview where Peter Chung said it symbolized her triumph over death, but I can't find the interview to corroborate that. None of the interviews I did find seem to, but I didn't read them in-depth; I just let Firefox search for the words "fly," "eye," or "death," and came up bupkis. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]