Entertainment desk
< November 10	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 12 >

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.

November 11[edit]

voice on juniper lee[edit]

who voices Catherine in the episode "It's the great pumpkin, Juniper Lee" of the life and times of juniper lee? Note that you can find the episode on youtube. 204.112.104.172 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python question[edit]

There's a Monty Python episode where there is a man sitting at his desk (a doctor, I think), with an extremely long list of post-nominal letters that goes on and on around the room.

Can someone remind me what episode this is in?
Does it look like they are all real or are most of them made up?
Is there a web page somewhere on the web with the full list of postnominals from this episode (hopefully with explanations for each)?

--216.239.45.4 (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's the Raymond Luxury-Yacht sketch. You know, I remember this very clearly because there are a bunch of Canadian references in it, haha. The full list, from Monty Python's Flying Circus - Just the Words, is "'Professor Sir Adrian Furrows F.R.S. F.R.C.S. F.R.C.P. M.D.M.S. (Oxon), Mall Ph.D., M. Se. (Cantab), Ph.D. (Syd), ER.G.S., F.R.C.O.G., F. FM.R.C.S., M.S. (Birm), M.S. (Liv), M.S. (Guadalahara), M.S. (Karach), M.S. (Edin), B.A. (Chic), B. Litt. (Phil), D. Litt (Phil), D. Litt (Arthur and Lucy), D. Litt (Ottawa), D. Litt (All other places in Canada except Medicine Hat), B. Sc. (Brussels, Liege, Antwerp, Asse, (and Grower)." I don't know if those are all real or what they all mean, and there are probably some transcription/copying errors, but here is the sketch on YouTube. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some...FRS - Fellow of the Royal Society, [FRCS - Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons, FRCP - Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, FRCOG - Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --216.239.45.4 (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.130 (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free media licensing confirmation for inactive band[edit]

Greetings! I'm trying to find confirmation of the licensing on the album Hotel Coral Essex from the inactive band Futuristic Sex Robotz. There are many secondary references online that indicate the band released the album as a 'creative commons' license in 2006. But with the inactivity of the band, and their website being down, no one has found any Primary references to the licensing. Some good detective work in the commons found a possible cite for CC Sampling Plus 1.0, but no primary sources. Thanks for any help. Eclipsed (t) 11:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One foot in the grave[edit]

Could you please tell me the name and title of the song that closed the last episode (No43) of One foot in the grave. Many Thanks

Derek Lister —Preceding unsigned comment added by DEREK LISTER (talk • contribs) 13:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says "End of the Line" by The Traveling Wilburys. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly determines a film's country of origin?[edit]

Initially, I thought that a film is labeled American, British or French depending on the nationality of the involved production companies, but this is not always the case. For example, Inception (2009) is an American/British co-production but labeled "American" and Shaun of the Dead (2004) an British/French/American production labeled only as British/French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizan (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labeled where, exactly? Are you talking about somewhere in the credits of the films, or on IMDB, or on Wikipedia? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just labeled, but general reference as well. Example "Oh, I've seen it. Its a German film right?" --Fizan (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, in casual conversation, I'd go by the nationality of the studio if I happened to know it. For instance, as far as I can tell from our article all the studios involved in Shaun of the Dead were either French or British. APL (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are there any conventions for labeling films here on Wikipedia? --Fizan (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People also tend to go by the speech of the primary actors, in many cases. Thus, if they are speaking with a British accent, and its set and/or filmed in Britain, people tend to think of it as an English film. There are of course, exceptions, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope being a notable one which, while filmed mostly in the U.K. and Tunisia, and which employed a large number of British actors, and which employed a largely British crew, is still generally regarded as an American film. However, the film The First Great Train Robbery, directed by an American (Michael Crichton, produced by an American (John Foreman (producer)), distributed by an American company (United Artists), is a British film. This is most likely one of those questions we got last week about the % of motorcycles and cars that are "American made". It depends on how you define it, and for various reasons the film's "country of origin" may not always be obvious. --Jayron32 21:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I tend to go by the nationality of the director, since (per auteur theory) the director is the primary creative source of the film. In the case of someone like Michael Haneke, for example, he is an Austrian and I regard his films as Austrian films, even though they are often international co-productions. --Viennese Waltz 04:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that doesn't work in general practice... Erich von Stroheim's films are unambiguously American (being Hollywood productions) as are those of Ridley Scott. --Jayron32 04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but there is no "general practice" as far as I'm concerned, European art films are to be considered apart from Hollywood blockbusters. When you talk about Austrian films, French films or German films you are talking about schools and styles of film-making which essentially reflect the creativity of the director, regardless of where the film was made or where the funding came from. --Viennese Waltz 08:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fizan, for Wikipedia conventions, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, that page doesn't mention how to determine the country of origin, only relevant information I could find is here Template:Infobox_film --Fizan (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, with a link to this discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_film#The_.22Country.22_field leading to the criteria in at Template:Infobox film. The problem is that there are many ways to decide a film's nationality. You could use a director's nationality, but you often distinguish between Hitchcock's British and American films. You could use the country where it is made, but that would lead to something like Star Wars being called British. As for production studios, many films are international productions now making it less clear cut. The consensus was that Wikipedia setting its own criteria would be original research which is not the correct procedure. Many editors wanted to remove the field but we couldn't agree on that, so in the end we decided that the nationality should be treated like any other fact and subject to verifiability. If a reliable source describes the film as an "American film" or publishes a list of "French films" for example (this is explained more clearly in the Infobox instructions), then that can be sourced and used to identify the nationality of the film. A film may have conflicting claims about its nationality and in those cases we decided it would be best to not to include the information. This has always been the most contentious issue on film articles, simply because you can't define the nationality as a fact. It is really a cultural judgement based on many different criteria. The jury is still out on whether the field should be pulled altogether, because some editors feel it is attempting to define the undefinable. Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia could follow the practice of one or more film websites or of one or more film festivals or of one or more film critics.

Wikipedia could mention all the available details, for example:

Produced by Americans
Directed mainly by Americans
Financed by Americans and Britons
Set in southeast Asia
Filmed in California and southeast Asia

—Wavelength (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an interesting idea. It would go some way to addressing the problem of trying to reduce all these different factors to one national identity. Betty Logan (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my comments (slightly expanded) at Template talk:Infobox film.

—Wavelength (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children's book[edit]

I remember a book I read, written, I think, for older elementary school students, and the book is probably at least 30 years old. The conceit was that any human baby can communicate fluently with animals until the baby starts to talk (human speech) at which point the ability to communicate with animals is completely lost. The scene I remember is that a few animals — a bird, a rabbit, a mouse, that sort of group — are friends with a baby; they gather around the baby's crib at the end of the book to reminisce about their adventures, and the baby says things like "goo" and "gaa" instead of being able to talk with them as s/he always had. The animals sadly say "That's it, then," basically, and leave. Any idea what this story might have been? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure you're remembering Mary Poppins (the book, not the insipid film), or its first sequel. I forget which of those has that scene, but it's certainly in one of those two. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fetched my copies: the first book (Mary Poppins) has Chapter 9 John and Barbara's Story. In it, the twin babies have a conversation with a sunbeam, a sparrow, and Mary Poppins, in which they learn that all babies stop being able to speak and understand this language as they grow up (except Mary). The end of the chapter has the sparrow return, after their first birthday:

"Well, Barbarina," he began in his soft, wheedling voice, "anything for the old fellow to-day?"

"Be-la-belah-belah-belah!" said Barbara, crooning gently as she continued to eat her arrowroot biscuit.

The Starling, with a start of surprise, hopped a little nearer.

"I said," he repeated more distinctly, "is there anything for the old fellow to-day, Barbie dear?"

"Ba-loo--ba-loo--ba-loo!" murmured Barbara, gazing up at the ceiling as she swallowed the last sweet crumb.

The Starling stared at her.

"Ha!" he said suddenly, and turned and looked enquiringly at Mary Poppins. Her quiet glance met his in a long look.

Then with a darting movement the Starling flew over to John's cot and alighted on the rail. John had a large woolly lamb hugged close in his arms.

"What's my name? What's my name? What's my name?" cried the Starling in a shrill anxious voice.

"Er-umph!" said John, opening his mouth and putting the leg of the woolly lamb into it.

With a little shake of the head the Starling turned away.

"So--it's happened," he said quietly to Mary Poppins.

etc.

The second book (Mary Poppins Comes Back) has Chapter 5 The New One. In this, baby Annabel is born, and the Starling and the Sunlight feature again, talking to her. Annabel, being new born, remembers where she came from.

Annabel moved her hands inside the blanket.

"I am earth and air and fire and water," she said softly. "I come from the Dark where all things have their beginning."

"Ah, such dark!" said the Starling softly, bending his head to his breast.

(...)

"I come from the sea and its tides," Annabel went on. "I come from the sky and its stars; I come from the sun and its brightness--"

etc

Then Annabel gets cross, because she tries to tell the other children where she came from, but they can't understand.

Then later:

"There's something I wanted to remember," said Annabel, frowning, "And I thought you might remind me."

He started. His dark eye glittered.

"How does it go?" he said softly. "Like this?"

And he began in a husky whisper: "I am earth and air and fire and water--"

"No, no!" said Annabel impatiently. "Of course it doesn't."

"Well," said the Starling anxiously, "was it about your journey? You came from the sea and its tides, you came from the sky and---"

"Oh, don't be so silly!" cried Annabel. "The only journey I ever took was to the park and back again this morning."

etc

Starling is very sorry. It's possible (likely) that the third book, and later ones, contains a similar scene that might be what you read. These scenes stuck with me vividly for years, so I imagine they might for other people too. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the first one fits the bill. Thank you, anonymous Mary Poppins rememberer! Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. It is a deeply weird book in many ways, and I gather the series only got stranger. But full of interesting ideas that I have subsequently found expanded on less imaginatively by inferior writers. For example, Baby Geniuses. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]