Entertainment desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	November 1 >

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.

October 31

Hamlet 1976 film

I notice that you don't have any article about Hamlet 1976 version for Hamlet on screen article. the film stars Helen Mirren as David and Anthony Meyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.15 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, that is an omission we must rectify. Btw, Helen Mirren played both Gertrude and Ophelia; there's no character named David. [1] -- JackofOz 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 76.64 meant the twin actors David and Anthony Meyer (Mischka & Grischka in Octopussy) who both played Hamlet and Laertes in the film, and we don't know who killed whom in the end. (In other words, "as" should read "and") ---Sluzzelin talk 02:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's probably it. -- JackofOz 02:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what movies does this scene happen...

I love scenes in movies in which the "good guy" (usually a police officer) sits down and chats with the "bad guy" (usually some sort of law breaker) in a casual way, as if they're good friends. The cop knows he/she is talking to the "enemy" and vice versa for the bad guy. It's an interesting dichotomy that makes for very entertaining movie scenes!

For instance...

The classic scene in Heat_(film) in which Al Pacino and Robert De Niro have dinner together.
This is sort of event occurs in The Brave One. Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard have lunch together.

Does this sort of scene happen in any other films that you're aware of?

Thanks! 12.206.102.177 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Bill Vol. 2. If you see the film or read the article, you'll see there's a very good reason why Uma Thurman's character is suddenly polite to her antagonist. --M @r ē ino 13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing about Heat is that the scene in the coffee shop is actually based on real events. Quite amazing. SteveBaker 13:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black actresses who know martial arts

I'm trying to come up with some names of black (as in African) actresses who practice martial arts. I mean the real deal, like Jet Li or Chuck Norris, and not an just an actress who has played a character who supposedly knew martial arts, but needed to use a stunt double or cut-away shots. Any martial arts style will do. I would prefer actresses who work mainly in the English language. Thanks! --M @r ē ino 04:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halle Berry did a bunch of martial arts training for Cat Woman. Check it out on Google. Beekone 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall Grace Jones doing some martial arts moves in her movies. StuRat 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Jones vs. Russell Harty was her finest moment! DuncanHill 12:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --M @r ē ino 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in opening credits

Why would a television show, or a movie, put potential spoilers in the opening credits? For example, I recently Netflixed the first disc of the second season of Star Trek: Voyager which contains the episode "The 37's". In this episode, there is a character called Amelia Earhart. When I sat down to watch the episode though, I already knew she was going to be in the episode since the character was listed in the opening credits as "Sharon Lawrence as Amelia Earhart". Why provide this spoiler? Dismas|^(talk) 08:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spoiler was not necessarily intended. Often, the network tells the show's staff when and where they may put the credits. UPN at that point had barely been in existence for a year, and they might not have gotten the procedure down for figuring out when considerations like spoilers would make it wise to run an unusual credit sequence. --M @r ē ino 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also union rules which may force the producers to give an actor credit in the opening, even if it spoils a plot point. -- 68.156.149.62 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the rules specify that sometimes the credit must include the character name? I had the impression that that's negotiable, along with sequence and such words as "with" or "featuring", reflecting nuances of the actor's relative clout. —Tamfang 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that but sometimes the actor is so well known as a particular character that just putting their name on screen is enough of a spoiler.That's why an episode of Angel had to get special permission to not put the name of Juliet Landau in the opening credits of a particular episode and as far as I recall it wasn't certain they would get permission

(I guess that would be The Trial? Though if I had seen her name I'd assume it was another flashback to 1860-98.) Sometimes they get around that by giving the actor a pseudonym; e.g. see Master (Doctor Who) (search for the second use of the word "anagram"). —Tamfang 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case the original poster was asking about, the spoiler was not the fact that Sharon Lawrence was acting in the episode; it's the fact that Amelia Earhart was a character. --Anon, 10:14 UTC, November 3.

I'm not sure that constitutes a spoiler. Amelia Earhart's appearance was not a pivotal plot twist in that episode as the general plot was already revelaed in that week's previews. --72.202.150.92 06:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previews? You mean those things that people watch if they want spoilers? --Anon, 23:33 UTC, Nov. 4.

That assumes that every viewer is going to watch the preview/catch the preview when it happens to air. Granted, Earhart's appearance isn't a major plot twist but it is a surprise to the viewer had they not been watching the credits as they played over the first few minutes of the episode. And thus spoils any surprise that they may have had. Dismas|^(talk) 07:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REGARDING CINDRELLA

Hi, This is (REDACTED).

I was searching for some of the Pictures and stories for my cousin. I was desperately searching for Cindrella stories. I think wikipedia can also update and add some stuffs for kids too. I think might be Iam not sure of seaching for those stuff here in wikipedia. Its my kind suggesstion for the people who are workingwith wikipedia where they can also entertain small kids too and make them interested to seach pages in here. Thank you... (REDACTED)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.14.7.34 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Kiddypedia. Interesting idea. It would take a huge amount of work to identify all the articles (out of the over 2 million! we currently have) that could be of particular interest to children, and then rewrite them in a more children-friendly style. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, or that it's not a good idea, but it would be a colossal task. In the meantime, I'm not sure if you found our article on Cinderella, but if not, click on the link. -- JackofOz 08:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that "kids" are not a single audience, but break down as many audiences in different age groups. Toddlers might enjoy a picture gallery, while 8-year olds would like a list of the characters, some quotations, etc., and 12-year olds, on the other hand, might be more interested in how the movie was made. StuRat 11:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Another issue I see is deciding on the wording of any one article. We have enough argy-bargy as it is; just imagine the conflict we'd generate in writing to a child audience. We'd ideally have to have child-age contributors on board, to ensure we get the tone right - not that that's a bad thing - but I suspect they'd fall by the wayside very quickly when the big-gun editors come out of the woodwork and talk down to them (or much worse) and give them a taste of what the "real world" of "mature" adults is like. -- JackofOz 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Argy-bargy" ? Is that Aussiespeak ? Another issue is that movies are "real" to kids below a certain age, so any discussion of people doing the voices, etc., would be a spoiler for them. StuRat 12:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argy-bargy. DuncanHill 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argybargy :-) --LarryMac | Talk 13:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DH. And for those who might assume it's pronounced the way it looks, the g's are soft. (Re that apostrophe with the plural of g: I considered the options and decided it was the best of a bad bunch. English isn't perfect after all - what a shock!). -- JackofOz 12:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]