Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 December 23

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.

December 23

Why does Danny Archer refer to himself as Rhodesian?

In the movie Blood Diamond, Leonardo DiCaprio's character refers to himself as Rhodesian. Why is that? 124.171.210.169 (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen it, but is there some reason to believe that the character wasn't born in Rhodesia? --Anonymous, 06:04 UTC, December 23, 2008.

FWIW, I know two people who describe themselves that way. For one of them, the reason is quite simple - he was born in Zimbabwe before 1980, when it was still called Rhodesia. As such, it makes sense for him to call himself a Rhodesian. For the other, it's more of a political statement - she is black African, yet feels that the country is in far worse state now - and she feels she is less enfranchised - than before independence. As such, she calls herself Rhodesian as a protest against Robert Mugabe's regime. Though I haven't seen the film in question, my guess is that the first reason may well apply - DiCaprio's character was probably born in Rhodesia before it became Zimbabwe. Grutness...wha? 07:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the movie and although it is set in the late 90's and DiCaprio's character is around 30 years old (ie. he would have had some memories of living in Rhodesia), I believe his self-identification as Rhodesian was more a political statement. I got the impression the character appreciated the political setup of Ian Smith's Rhodesia. Astronaut (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Classic movie title

Hi, I'm looking for the title to a classic movie about an heiress, her father, stepmother and chauffer who plot murder by cutting brake lines. The heiress ends up getting killed in the end by her own plot-driving her sports car off the family estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.5.160 (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Big Sleep? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That links to the book. For the movies, see The Big Sleep (1946 film) and The Big Sleep (1978 film). StuRat (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Big Sleep, at leats the Bogie-Bacall version (one of my FAVORITE films of all time, especially the "Horse race" conversation between Bogie and Bacall) doesn't match that plot much. The plot of the Big Sleep really is hard to follow; its more about feeling the same sorts of confusion Marlowe (Bogie's character) feels as he tries to figure out exactly what was going on. If I remember right, the plot was mostly about covering up the debauchery of Lauren Bacall's little sister (played by Martha Vickers) and not much else. There were some murders connected to the gambling operation run by the Mars character, but these turned out to be incedental to the overall plot of the film, and Marlowe's involvement was mainly in trying to keep General Sternwoods daughters out of association with the murders. The 1978 Robert Mitchum version was basically the same as the 1946 Humpphrey Bogart version, just with more debauchery (nudity, sex, etc...) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Back to the OP's question; do you have any more information? What time period was the film? 1940's? 1970's? Was it in black and white or color? Do you remember any actors? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The no-brakes gag was used in a lot of films; Family Plot comes to mind, but the heiress bit does not fit. We need an Internet Movie Plot Database™ for these questions. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this movie a comedy ? Everyone using the same, rather silly, method of murder makes it sound like a comedy. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be someone's vague recollection of Angel Face. —Kevin Myers 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

TV documentary on total human consumption in average lifetime (British)

I saw a fantastic TV programme last night (documentary) and would love to get a copy of it - perhaps someone could please help! I saw it on Antena 3 (Spain) and it was called "La huella humana", and I think it was from National Geographic but that's all the info I have been able to find on internet. It is a British production (I'm pretty sure) and would perhaps be called something like "The Human (Foot)Print", but the National Geographic side only shows an American documentary and this one is definitely set in England. It shows the total amount of things we consume or use up in our lives for the average person (for example, 3.5 washing machines, 7 (?) cars, food, clothes, etc.) and other things (total excrement produced, total number of words said - 123 million). It features two young children (a blonde girl and a boy with curly hair) as a leitmotif who visually demonstrate all the different areas - for example they play with the total nº of nappies or toilet paper we use, and watch 4 cows and 8 sheep go by, or sit next to all the litres of milk we will drink, etc. etc. Does anyone know of this documentary, and in addition how one may acquire a copy? Any help MUCH appreciated, thanks! --AlexSuricata (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's this documentary by Channel 4. You can watch it free on "4od" online but you must have a British or Irish IP address. Fribbler (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the documentary! (I recognize the image shown on the page and the description is perfect). Now just have to find a copy, but THANK YOU so much for the info! - and a very Merry Christmas too :-) --AlexSuricata (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Monte Carlo (disambiguation)

Near the bottom of that page is a link as follows:

• Montecarlo, 1956 US film

However, this link doesn't take me to the film, but rather the administrative region of Monaco. I'd like to fix this link, but don't know where to point it. So, do we have an article on this film ? If so, what's the name ? StuRat (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Searching through the various serach terms and spellings, I only come accross a 1930 film named Monte Carlo (1930 film). Looks to me like the articles does not exist, which means that you could either create one at Monte Carlo (1956 film) or Montecarlo (1956 film) (one should probably redirect to the other) or you could just remove the link from the Dab page... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an entry on IMDB for Montecarlo from 1957. --LarryMac | Talk 18:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And there's an entry on Italian Wikipedia for the "1956" version, with the same cast - [1] - if the English article existed with the similar (lack of) content, it may have been deleted. --LarryMac | Talk 18:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, that was a fun trip down the rabbit hole - - here is the where the 1956/7 film was added to the disambiguation page, on 21 December 2005 (happy third birthday, edited version!). The Redirect for "Montecarlo" to Monte Carlo has existed since 10 December 2004 (What is it with December and MC edits?). I'd guess that the editor who added the link on the disambiguation page never checked the link. The filmography on the Marlene Dietrich page calls the film The Monte Carlo Story, for which we do have an article. Indeed, clicking the IMDB link from there takes us back to the Montecarlo IMDB page I linked above, where the AKAs include Monte Carlo and The Monte Carlo Story. Note also that the Dietrich page indicates it's a 1956 film, but the article about the movie calls it a 1957 production. Now, how to cut through all that and make a constructive edit? That's left as an exercise for the reader. --LarryMac | Talk 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the disambiguation page. I will go with IMDB and say it's a 1957 film. I will also go with the title in our article, The Monte Carlo Story. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also changed the date in the Marlene Dietrich article, but will leave the Italian Wikipedia for the Italians to fix. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Names

Obviously, the 2 humans in flesh show in here are seancody.com models (I know they are models from the website). What are their names?96.53.149.117 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning: That looks to be the start of a gay sex video. Fortunately it stops after the two men undress each other to their boxers, but probably not the type of thing you want to view at work, unless you want everyone to look at you a little differently from now on. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Homophobe.96.53.149.117 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be obnoxious. StuRat was making no commentary about the subject matter other than to warn people that it's not appropriate for work. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You're missing what he wrote.96.53.149.117 (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You're reading more into it than is there. See WP:AGF. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"but probably not the type of thing you want to view at work, unless you want everyone to look at you a little differently from now on." That is homophobic.96.53.149.117 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing homophobic about not wanting people to think you're the type of person who views sex videos at work. StuRat (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lesson: If the issue is about warning people not to watch sex videos at work, then whether the content is straight, gay, or even weird stuff like pedophilia or bestiality, is irrelevant, and does not need to be mentioned. It just creates more trouble than it's worth. If the subtext is that it's less unacceptable to watch a straight-sex video at work than a gay-sex video, than you've made your point. But I don't think that was your point, Stu. Those who don't know you as intimately as some of us do might not appreciate that, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the OP posted here specifically so he could accuse the first responder of being homophobic. In that context, there's little I could do to stop him. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy that, I'm afraid, Stu. The first person to make reference to the sexuality of the participants was you. Anyone who cared to look at the video would have seen that for themselves. If the actors were a guy and a girl, would you have written "Warning: That looks to be the start of a straight sex video" ? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have omitted the word "straight". Similarly, I'd have said "a sex video featuring Japanese with purple Mohawks", if the participants looked like that, but wouldn't have said "a sex video featuring Japanese with black hair, cut in the typical fashion", if the participants looked like that. Being straight or have the usual hairstyle simply isn't worthy of mention. If 90% of the world was homosexual and 90% of Japanese had purple Mohawks, then those attributes wouldn't be worth mentioning and being straight or Japanese with black hair would be. StuRat (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to see how that squares with what you said above "There's nothing homophobic about not wanting people to think you're the type of person who views sex videos at work". It's the fact that the video contains sexual material that makes it a problem for workplace viewing. It doesn't matter what variety of sex is shown - any sex video you watch at work could get you the sack. If someone asked you how you got home from work, would you say "I came by taxi", or would you say "I came by a taxi driven by a gay Chinese Jewish taxi driver"? If someone asked you where you bought that apple, would say "At the 7-11", or would you say "At the 7-11, and I was served by a gay shop assistant"? Mentioning the characteristics of minority groups in contexts where it has no relevance suggests you're discriminating in ways that are not helpful and border on being destructive, as the first response to your original post shows. I don't believe for a moment you're homophobic, but maybe a tad more sensitivity to this sort of inappropriate language wouldn't go astray. Cheers and Happy New Year. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There are also those at home who wouldn't care to watch a gay sex video (but perhaps would want to watch a straight sex video), so letting them know what the content was seemed a valuable service. And I would note it if the taxi or 7-11 were unusual in some way. (If the taxi was an SUV or the 7-11 had a full supermarket inside, you bet I'd mention it.) Your apparent policy of never mentioning a minority reminds me of a funny newspaper photo of Paul Simon and Ladysmith Black Mambazo, where they had to identify Paul as "the one with glasses", because mentioning that the others were African in full tribal dress might be seen as racist. This is political correctness run amok. Minorities would do much better if they focused on those who are actually oppressing them (say those who want to ban gay adoptions), rather than wasting their energy accusing everyone and their brother of homophobia. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that nobody's made any mention of home viewing until now. That's a completely different scenario than what we've been discussing. What people watch at home is their own affair, and nobody needs to "warn" them about homosexuality, in the way that they might appropriately be warned about snuff films or pedophilia, for example. We might warn a parent that a video contains sexual material, unsuitable for young children, but we wouldn't confine our warning only to gay videos, would we. No, any sex video would be unsuitable for young children. Now, I don't know where you got this "apparent policy of never mentioning a minority" from. Where did I ever say that? My remarks were about not mentioning minority groups in contexts where it's not relevant. Would you introduce me to your three friends Bill, Peter and Michael with just their names (I certainly hope so), or would you mention in your introduction that Peter is Jewish and Michael is gay (I certainly hope not). The latter information would be just as irrelevant in that context, and potentially offensive in that context, as warning people that a video is unsuitable for viewing at work because of its specifically gay content, as distinct from its specifically sexual content. On the other hand, if I asked you if you had any gay friends, it would be perfectly relevant to tell me that Michael is such a person. (Apart from the fact that outing people without their consent is not generally OK, but that's a separate issue. But you could still reply that, yes, you have some gay friends, without naming them.) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant, of course, "your apparent policy of never mentioning a minority unless the question is about that minority", much as the newspaper had the policy of never mentioning race unless the story was about race. As for introducing friends, I probably wouldn't identify their religions or sexual prefs right off, but would eventually get around to it, unless they were "in the closet", since I see no reason to keep such info secret, unless at the requests of those people. And I stand by my comment that many adults won't want to watch gay sex videos who would want to watch straight sex videos (and vice-versa). I don't think telling people what the link they are about to click will do is ever a bad thing; the more info they have the better decision they can make. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(continued on StuRat's talk page)

They are in their boxers. But still be warned. This is not what you would call safe for work. Anyways, I would imagine it to be in the video description. I didn't bother to watch it. Just shuffled to the end really quickly to see if it was work and youtube safe. If it is not in the description. Then I have no clue, mate what to tell you. Rgoodermote  01:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you ask on the video comments, or PM the uploader, if you have an account. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 07:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Their stage names appear to be Chet and Dirk. The video is #209 in Sean Cody's collection, titled Chet & Dirk. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaming

Do they still make adventure games? The type where you run around using items, talking to people, and getting points, and there are ways to die and ways to make the game unwinnable? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Like Kingdom of Loathing? --Nricardo (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they do. Ever heard of Fable 2? flaminglawyer^c 08:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fable 2 is really more of an RPG than an adventure game maybe you could call it an adventure RPG, but it does fit the OPs description. As games progress these distinctions have less and less meaning since just about every game overlaps several genres. -- Mad031683 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And that's surely not the only one: there's the Ratchet and Clank series, Halo (game) (it's an FPS-RPG, but it has a strong sense of adventure in it), and a bunch of others. For more info see adventure game. flaminglawyer^c 23:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And if you don't need graphics, the interactive fiction community is alive and well, though as a hobbyist endeavor, and not in any commercial sense. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Myst? bibliomaniac15 20:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Making the game "unwinnable" isn't very fun, so it tends not to happen in modern video games. As for the rest, the genre is very much alive. A (relatively) recent big name would be Oblivion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)