Entertainment desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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.

July 3[edit]

pink panther episode[edit]

What was the name of the Pink Panther episode where Pink Panther visits the castle and the vampire tries to suck his blood but unsuccessful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.76 (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Plasma? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of the episode where Pink Panther is lonely and doesn't have a girlfriend but he starts dreaming that he has one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.199 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting work as a film extra[edit]

I live quite close to several large film studios in the UK. If I fancied trying to get a job as an extra (I have zero experience in this field), can I just drive up to the studio and ask to see someone in charge of casting extras? Astronaut (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? You could also call them on the telephone and ask. Fortune favors the bold. --Jayron32 03:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an extra ... typically no experience is needed or called for. Good luck! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Song identification[edit]

For some reason this song popped into my head but I can't quite hear enough of it in my head or remember where I heard it to track down what it is. So, given you guys' track record of spotting songs from the barest of details, I've come here to help me with the earworm that hasn't quite surfaced...

It's a fairly recent artist I think. I want to say Moby but can't be sure. I've heard the song in popular films but, no surprise here, can't think of any of the titles. It's a fairly simple song with staccato lyrics that are almost spoken or chanted instead of sung. By simple, I mean that there aren't a lot of instruments, it's mostly just a beat with possibly some guitars. And I vaguely remember there being something about a mountain in the lyrics. Anyone have a guess? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its Pepper (song) by the Butthole Surfers. I am 99% certain. The song is more spoken than sung, the instrumentation is sparse, and the chorus has the line "They were all in love with dyin'/They were drinking from a fountain/That was pouring like an avalanche/Coming down the mountain". I would be surprised if it weren't that. --Jayron32 04:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You're close though! I Googled that and heard a clip. There are some similarities but it's not it. The song I'm thinking of is a bit faster than that and the singer doesn't sound as monotone. Dismas|^(talk) 04:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Song by Jane's Addiction? --Jayron32 04:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too hard rock. Try again, please. Dismas|^(talk) 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you remember the name of one of the films (or do you watch so many modern popular movies that you lose track?) and look up the soundtrack (or let us comb the soundtrack for you)? 81.131.55.26 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Moby's tracks off of Play could easily qualify, and the Butthole Surfers answer seems perfect... Beck's "Loser" sounds a lot like "Pepper".... can you throw anything else out about the track? Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I can't remember anything else. And I do watch quite a few films. Dismas|^(talk) 21:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the 6th Planeteer with the Indian dot at 1:45 on this episode?[edit]

In that episode of Captain Planet that takes place in a pollution-free future, an unknown 6th planeteer makes a brief statement at 1:45 in this video. I've looked high and low for her name, and even searched for scripts that repeat her quote: Incredible. How could such stupid, selfish people ever have had any influence? As Google wouldn't be forthcoming this time, would anyone here please figure out who that 6th planeteer was, and what her power is? --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 05:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From watching the clip and remembering back to when I watched the shows, there is no sixth Planeteer. She is wearing a shirt with the logo on it, but I don't recall that being limited to Planeteers. Why do you think she is a Planeteer? ^Avic _ennasis @ 01:20, 22 Tamuz 5770 / 4 July 2010 (UTC)

She's with the rest of the planeteers. Why else would she be with them? --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

censorship[edit]

Hi everybody. I'm a canadian visiting my brother in the 'States. I don't mean to sound crass here but Why do they censor nipples on television? I can understand censoring genitalia but breasts are a natural part of the female figure, as natural as hair. And even more so, they can display the most erotic part (the "body" or the breast, if you will) and censor the part that is not erotic at all! 76.229.237.118 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you jump to any conclusions, check out Cinemax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the OP is using an IP based in Wisconsin. Their attitudes are considerably more liberal. The mammary organs are on constant display across the state. Most often on cows, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a moment to point out that genitalia are also a natural part of the female (and male) figure, as natural as hair. Consider how you feel about genitalia, that makes you understand why people would censor it. Then understand that some cultures feel that way about nipples, just as some cultures have felt about shoulders, or ankles, or knees, or feet. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the furore over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe failure" at the Super Bowl, I get the impression that when it comes to TV, the US is surprisingly conservative; and this is despite the USA's position as the world's largest producer of pornography. On the other hand, much of the Family Guy episode "PTV" satirizes the USA's attitude very well. Astronaut (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FCC regulates the public airwaves, and sets the rules to conform to what are presumed to be a broad base of public taste. The rules are different on pay cable channels such as HBO or Cinemax. One thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. was founded on puritanism, so it shouldn't be surprising that we're both excessively attracted by and repelled by sexual imagery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Don't question American censorship. Your head will hurt. --mboverload @ 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, Americans are extremely conservative when it comes to their television and radio. And to breasts in general. Numerous places have tried to ban breastfeeding in public (see the link for more on that for the US). Add to the list of examples:

NYPD Blue which was not aired in some areas or moved to later time slots due to its use of strong language and, something that was ground breaking at the time, shots of naked mens butts.
Howard Stern, and other shock jocks would get sued and fined and so on over things they said on their radio show. Eventually, Stern and others moved to satellite radio to avoid the restrictions of the FCC.

So, yeah, America has some interesting hang ups when it comes to the human body in general. Dismas|^(talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe our apparent puritanism just makes things more interesting? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, maybe one extreme leads to another? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auction chant[edit]

I am curious as to why an auction chant is spoken so rapidly by the auctioneer? Is it to make the proceedings run more quickly and efficiently? Is it a psychological tactic to put "pressure" on the bidders (i.e., to commit to a purchase in a "rushed" sense without time to really mull it over)? What is the basic underlying rationale of the auction chant technique? I read the Wikipedia article, which states: "giving the illusion that the auctioneer is talking fast, and thus creating more excitement and bidding anxiety among the bidding crowd". But, I am seeking more information beyond that one statement. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hopefully, someone will be able to give you a more proper answer. In the meantime, I may be able to provide a bit of perspective. At the auction house I attend, the auctioneer doesn't make use of the chant. However, he still speaks in a very quick manner, with a good reliance on set expressions he likes to use. The result is a "yes" to both your initial questions - yes, it allows him to run through the lots quickly and yes, it induces people to act quickly and/or leave their cards up longer than they might if they thought about it. It's very easy (and expensive) to get caught up in the bidding and the best way to do that is to not have a lot of time for cogitation. I was at an auction three weeks ago and he knocked down the first 250 lots in less than two hours - not much time for thinking indeed!
He gets paid a percentage of the sale (and a percentage of the purchase - nice set up), so it's in his best interests to get through as many lots as possible and also get the most he can for each item. What occurs is a very careful balancing act that's difficult to describe unless you're there. A good auctioneer already has a good idea of what each lot will go for, based on past bids and who is in the crowd, so he will speed up and slow down his speaking to suit his purposes. For lower value items, he'll burn through them at top speed; if someone ends up spending more than they might have wanted to, so much the better, but he primarily wants the lot gone and done. For high value items, he'll burn through the early bids quickly to not waste time and then slow right down near the end. These bidders are likely collectors (or re-sellers); they're not likely to not be aware of what they're bidding, but they may be induced to bid against each other, if they're given enough time/incentive. He turns personable and may even talk to the individuals, "$2,400 against you, sir. $2,500?" You can see some funny facial contortions as these guys wrestle with increasing their bid.
The speed also helps keep things under control; there's a very intense psychological drive to not argue or create a scene if things are obviously being done in a hurried manner. Someone thinks their bid was missed? "Sorry sir, be faster next time, must keep on" and he's off with nary a breath missed. Matt Deres (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from that, it seems to me that the higher the price, the slower the auctioneer. You don't hear auctioneers rattling through "four million, two hundred and thirtyone thousand on my left - it's against you sir..." at great speed on TV auction shows! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. The input was helpful. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Porn actors[edit]

In the USA, are porn actors generally part of an actor's union (like SAG)? Or do they have their own specific porn actor's union? Or are they not union workers at all? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Apparently not as of 1997. Dismas|^(talk) 23:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And not as of 2010 either... I can't post the link as a link since it's blacklisted if you check the link to examiner.com about half way down this page of search results, you can see my source. Dismas|^(talk) 23:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As if a porn actor would join something called SAG ... Mitch Ames (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]