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]

Kids tv show/movie, possibly British, 80s[edit]

I'm trying to remember the title of what I think is a movie that I saw when I was a kid, so it has to be in the 80s. It was on BBC1, during Children's BBC, and if my memory serves me correctly, a Friday afternoon. For a period, CBBC aired these 60- or 90-minute one-off features, possibly some sort of after-school special (hope that article exists!).

Anyway, it was about a boy who liked to run, and he ended up with this white t-shirt with the face of a leopard or tiger or something printed on it. And every time he wore it and started running, the tiger face would glow orange and he'd run faster. What is it?!?!?!?! It's been driving me crazy! Thanks Matthewedwards : Chat 01:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't ring any bells but was well after my time. If nobody else knows you could try this. Alansplodge (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy's Super T-Shirt? ---Sluzzelin talk 02:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're good, I think that's it! Thank you, guys Matthewedwards : Chat 03:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How well does it Rank ?[edit]

Over the years, watching television, I have noticed that in both NYC and LA the police have a rank of Inspector. Now according to Wikipedia, in New York this is supposed to be two ranks above that of Captain, which seems to agree with what I have seen in police shows set there. But in Los Angeles, Inspector is said to be one rank above that of Captain, yet in Sledge Hammer, Inspector Sledge Hammer answers to Captain Trunk, so how can this be ?Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 04:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See fiction. Come back if you have more questions. --Jayron32 04:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the idea is, whether the ranks work out in real life, if the producers of Sledge Hammer want him to be an inspector ranked below a captain, that's their business. As for me, I would prefer to be as true to reality if I were using realistic concepts such as Police rank or history and true stories, but for this, I get it. Fair enough. I guess if one really wants to be picky ( which sometimes I do ), they can look up the real ranks and make sure they work out. I suspect for a procedural police drama like CSI: New York, they do make it as realistic as possible - but even in there, I realise they have more shootouts than the average real NYC cop would in their lifetime. In any case, I love Sledge Hammer, so even if the ranks may not seem right, it makes no difference to how great it is. I did notice that according to this, Captain Trunk does not appear to have a first name - unless it was revealed in the episode where people were trying to kill him and he wanted to get back with his wife. Thanks for that. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the CSI franchise is equally as bad when it comes to police procedures. Having a close relative actually work in the forensic science field, the actual police work that goes on on CSI is to police work what Star Wars is to modern Physics. It is complete crap. They use scientific sounding terms in completely fictional ways; so please don't think they actually get anything "right" when it comes to how police should do their job. --Jayron32 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings up my own pet peeve with those shows: that they have the CSI's doing the police officer's job, instead of or as often as they do any CSI work. Rmhermen (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because what actually happens is that everyone's job is highly specialized. You have "evidence technicians" who collect evidence. That is all they do. They don't talk to suspects, they don't do any investigation, they don't analyze the evidence at all. They are trained in how to collect and preserve evidence so someone else can look at it. You have detectives, whose job it is to talk to people and keep all of the paperwork together. They don't work in a lab, they don't touch any evidence, they don't handle anything. They talk to people. You have the actual forensic analysts who work in a lab and analyze what you bring in. They don't leave the lab, they don't collect evidence, they don't talk to suspects. They sit in a room and look at a microscope and write reports. All day. And the forensic field itself is highly specialized. If you're a DNA analysts, that's all you do all day. You just do DNA fingerprinting and comparisons. You don't look at ballistics, you don't do fingerprints, you don't look at fibers. You do DNA. Someone else does the ballistics, and that's all they do, all day. Someone else does fiber matches. Etc. Etc. There is no such thing as a "Crime scene investigator" as a single job. It just doesn't exist. --Jayron32 16:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice in the list at Police_rank#United States, we see Inspector/commander/colonel as a rank above Major and Detective/Inspector/Investigator as a much lower rank just above Officer/Deputy/Patrolman. When you have 14,169 separate agencies employing 708,569 officers, you will have some variations in system. Some places have Patrol/Detectives/specialty jobs entirely separate from rank. My father held a rank of Patrolman but a job title of Investigator. Remember Detectives Riggs and Murtaugh are Captains (briefly) by the last film. Rmhermen (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You all again. I guess it boils down to degress of accuracy, with some shows to a given extent more realistic than others, and the lie is to do with making it watchable and comprehendible.

I understand that in real life, as opposed to the universe inhabited by CBS, DNA tests take a matter of weeks, not hours as they show on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. If only they really were that quick ! I would have thought, given the greater transperancy and cynicism of all things these days, film makers would be more careful in wanting to portray a realistic world - if not in how fast a crime is solved, and the amount of action involved, at least in the procedural part, as to who does what and where the ranks of individuals really are.

I went to school with someone who is now a police inspector, but he has been in the force since 1987, so any show I see where a detective has a high rank after only a short time, I realise is ludicrous. It would actually be refreshing to see a cop show with a lot more realism, and sure, add a bit of action by all means, but don't overdo it. Somtimes it is fine once in a while to see a cop who doesn't blow away half a dozen scumbags each week.

I recall the scene out of the incredibly accurate Zodiac, a film I finally saw late last year on TV after waiting some time for it, where Mark Ruffalo's character Inspector David Toschi goes to see Dirty Harry at the pictures in the early seventies at the time he is trying to hunt down a vicious killer. I think it is the scene where Andy Robinson's Charles Davis, the 'Scorpio Killer', is shot in the leg by Clint Eastwood's Harry, and Toschi says something like " So much for Police procedure."

I often wonder how real cops view cop shows, and I can imagine some of them watching and pointing out all the mistakes. What amazes me about Dirty Harry is how dense in some ways Harry Callahan is in terms of due process, when his illegal actions get the evidence thrown out. Sure that kind of " fruit of the poison tree " stuff sucks, but one would think in real life a cop would know better, especially one as experienced. In the end though, Dirty Harry is s great film, for the action and entertainment value, and as I noted, it is all just escapism.

Indeed we do need the odd cop show that doesn't take too many liberties, then we can have others that are outright invention. I guess the idea behind CSI and such is to introduce all of us to the idea that solving crime is not just done by cops, but many others - each doing their part - and that real forensics does have some valid principles in it. Although I did see a documentary once which showed how one forensic principle used for years has now been discredited, since it lead to a man being wrongfully executed, and that was to do with how windows fracture in a fire. Originally they thought that if the window did so in a kind of spiderweb pattern, that accelerants had been used, but these days it is known that is not the case.

Now, does anyone know whether CSI's really do carry guns and use them ? I recall reading Oscar Fraley's The Untouchables, and Eliot Ness mentions going into the forensic lab and meeting up with a scientist he knew, who was armed, even though he was simply a technician, and not a Treasury agent. But it has been noted that Fraley himself may have embellished Ness' story.

Going back to cops touching evidence. It annoys me to see someone on these shows - even if a forensics person - pick something up without photographing it first. I cannot imagine anyone doing that for real. And yes, I have noticed that on CSI, which I do like though, the CSI's do seem to be doing cop's jobs, and I am sure the jobs are seperate. I would say it would be best for forensics people to have next to nothing to do with the public so as to be neutral and beyond accusation of consorting with anyone. Only the coroner is likely to speak to the public. I also notice that in some of these shows the cops do dumb things that would get anyone else put in prison, or get away with stuff ups that should at least have them sacked.

On Sunday night here in NZ I shall be watching a movie about a true crime investigation of a South African doctor who allegedly killed his wife and was caught out by New Zealand Police - I remember seeing it on the news at the time over ten years ago. I shall note how realistic that is.

I understand that every film has to take liberties - especially with dialogue, since even if one was there, how could they know exactly what they said verbatim during a conversation many years ago if they did not tape it ? And then there are the composite characters and merging of events and change of order of events for dramatic purposes. Sometimes though, it would be good to see a movie that even if it is not true, could really be. The rest is fiction. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australia advert on British television[edit]

There's an advert for Australia on British TV at the moment (they want you to visit, not buy it, and anyway it'd cost a fortune in excess baggage) in which a song is sung. It goes something like "Australia, Australia, there's nothing like Australia". The tune sounds rather familiar - anyone know what it is? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about this new campaign to attract more of you over here, but hadn't bothered to watch the ad. So I looked it up, and found that anyone can watch it here. The tune sounds like one of those ubiquitous, non-copyrighted things that's used in review shows and the like all the time. I could name a couple of local uses of it that wouldn't mean a thing to you, so I won't bother. But others may know it as a more definite tune. (As for the imagery, please don't try to cuddle a platypus. They have spurs on their hind legs which can inject a very nasty venom. You won't die, but it can hurt like hell.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When your edit summary came up on my watchlist, I thought "Fabulous! There's a song called Please don't cuddle a platypus". Imagine my disappointment to find you were only offering animal-handling tips. DuncanHill (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want, I can work on something. I'm thinking of using Schnappi, das kleine Krokodil as a style to plagiarise. OK? HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - and if you can get the Greatest Living Australian to record it, even better! DuncanHill (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to it again, it strikes me as rather Eric Idle-ish. Any Python fans recognise the tune? DuncanHill (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does have that Idlean Music Hall flavour, but apparently it was composed by Josh Abrahams (see Tourism Australia's website]) ---Sluzzelin talk 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]