Entertainment desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

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.

May 16

Chris Brown scandal...

For about a month now, the Chris Brown page has been a complete mess. the page is locked so i can't edit it. there is a rumour posted there of a sex scandal and when i checked the source, found it to be highly unreliable. A lot of younger fans read the page, and they don't need to read garbage. If any credible editor's are reading this, could you please fix this? Thankyou --58.108.91.119 00:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MH

Does anyone have any information on songs RnB singer Marques Houston did with the Ying Yang Twins. They don't appear on any of their albums. For reference, the songs are "Do It" and "The Jumpoff".--58.108.91.119 00:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something's up with Disney...

Why do they always choose to ruin their classics with horrendous sequels? For example, Cinderella was doing fine until they released the second and third ones.bibliomaniac 1 5 01:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney has the problem that their classic characters are becoming less familiar to new generations, and they need to somehow "keep them fresh". It could be seen as a genuine attempt to make an entertaining film that fails, or as an attempt to cash in on our collective memories to make a fast buck. Some see the glass slipper as half empty, some see it as half full. StuRat 02:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't drink champagne out of it after Cinders has been dancing till midnight. :) JackofOz 02:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much foot perspiration can a woman with the tiniest shoe in the city have? As long as you follow the five-second rule, no one will know... bibliomaniac 1 5 05:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your advice if you can guarantee me that she didn't put her shoe on until 11:59:55 pm. :) JackofOz 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney cinema-released animations are big-budget event movies with many marketing tie-ins. They appeal to teens and many adults as well as kids. They can spawn theme-park rides and cartoon series that mop up extra revenue among younger, more impressionable fans. Disney animated sequels are direct-to-video cash-ins. Young children will obsessively watch the original on DVD over and over to the frustration of parents and others. A sequel will appeal to these uncritical viewers in spite of its much lower production values, weak script, unsophisticated humour, and lack of celebrity voice-artists. Most of those old enough to have some critical judgment ignore the sequels, even if they enjoyed the original movie. While most of the original movies are based (loosely) on a traditional or well-known story, the sequels are original stories focussed on the characters created by Disney, which are thus subject to Disney's creative control. Compare three sequels to the same original story: The Starlight Barking (book); 101 Dalmatians II (direct-to-video animation); 102 Dalmatians (live-action cinema).jnestorius^(talk) 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFS Carbon not working!

Hi. I got NFS Carbon for PC as a birthday present. The setup seems to be complete, but every time I try to start it the splash screen appears, the screen goes black and then shows my desktop again. WHY?? If anyone can help, I'll greatly appreciate it.

--Ash "Gotta Catch Em' All" Ketchum 16:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

P. S. I think it has something to do with my graphics card...

Have you checked the graphics card is compatible with the game? Do you have the approrpiate version of direct x installed? Have you checked that the drivers for your graphics card are up-to-date? All these things could affect the ability to run the game ny156uk 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon is quite resource intensive. Moreso than practically any other game I've played. I put it down to lack of optimisation, as it isnt particularly pretty. As Ny156uk says, check graphics card compatability and game requirements. Also I would suggest trying to update your audio drivers - this can cause havoc sometimes.

Check the readme file; they sometimes tell you that by adding something like -x or -w to the file path, which causes the program to either run in windowed mode, skip the starting video or search for a different driver. You may get a better response at the Computers desk though. Laïka 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing... Please somebody e-mail me with a list of compatible graphics cards for NFS. That would be greatly appreciated. My E-mail address will be posted on my talk page.

--Ash "Gotta Catch Em' All" Ketchum 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to "my preferences" and "Enable e-mail from other users"; that way you need not publish your address. —Tamfang 05:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that, because the original e-mail I created my profile with is gone because I haven't used it often. Is there any way I can switch e-mails? Probabaly not, but I would like to know. In the meantime, please use the e-mail posted on my talk page.

Ash "Gotta Catch Em' All" Ketchum 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

British TV "series" vs. USA TV "season"

I was curious why British TV shows have such short "seasons." (usually 6-12 episodes). In the USA, most series range from length 22-26 episodes. Is there some historical reason? (I prefer it, since a short run seems to be better written -- like The Sopranos -- rather than filler and B-level episodes written to fill in the longer season)

You might find what you are looking for in this thread. IrishGuy ^talk 22:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to the relative sizes of the populations of the UK vs. the USA. A smaller audience means less ad revenue (or tax revenue, for public TV) which means less money to spend per season. A classic case of planning for low budgets in British TV is Doctor Who, where they had the TARDIS malfunction so it always looks like a police box (to avoid having to spend money on changing it each episode), and they allowed the Doctor to "regenerate" periodically, meaning they could replace him with a cheaper actor when the old one got greedy. Similarly, the Doctor's companions seemed to be easily replaceable. StuRat 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in our plethora of Doctor Who articles, nor specifically in regeneration or History of Doctor Who can I find any reference to greedy actors. The first time it was used was because of concerns about the William Hartnell's age and health, the second time because Patrick Troughton said he was tired of the rigors of a regular series. And so on. Given that, I'd be curious about where you have sourced this information about revenue versus length of season. --LarryMac | Talk 01:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for relative budgets of shows doesn't really add up, since there are plenty of British TV shows that do run all year around. Moreover, ad revenue is generated by episode (for commerical TV), so as long as you can maintain viewing figures then you can continue to generate your income level irrespective of number of episodes. As pointed out above, The Doctor Who example isn't quite correct either. There is no evidence any doctor has been replaced due to salary demands (indeed, history shows its usually the doctors that choose to leave, with the BBC offering them more money to stay). Instead, it is a device to permit the continuation of the same fictional character over a long period of time.

The more convincing reason is that TV is less ad-driven in the UK, indeed all free-to-air channels have some public service conditions to their license (see Public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom). So whereas, there is huge commercial incentive to continue to generate episodes of successful shows in the US, this is less pronounced in the UK. Instead, creative considerations have greater importance. So what you find is that British writers and producers feel they can tell their story best in 6-12 episodes, so that is what they do (cf. The Office). In the US, the networks put intense pressure on the makers of tv shows to continue to churn out more episodes to generate more money, so that is what they do (cf. The Office (US TV series)). Its no co-incidence, I would propose, that the British comedies most revered by US audiences are the ones that have very few episodes. Quality over quantity, perhaps, as the querent suggests. Indeed, the producers and actors of Lost recently discussed how they had planned a start, middle and end for their plot. However, since the show has been so successful, the network asked them to "pad out" the middle story arc (which is what they have been doing recently). Now they have established that the show will end in 3 seasons time, they have noted that they can get back on to their original story arc.

The other reason is historical and based on the seasonal aspect of US televsion (though this itself evolved from commercial considerations and chasing the highest ratings, which is why the UK doesn't really have TV seasons.) The seasons historically last a certain period of time and therefore US shows are produced to fit into this time frame. Rockpocket 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that period of time is 9 months. American TV seasons used to be 39 weeks, but broadcasters found they could dilute their product with rerun after rerun and people would still watch. --Anon, May 17, 04:25 (UTC).

I just feel the need to mention Coronation Street and East Enders as exceptions to the short series theory. --LarryMac | Talk 13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation I have heard is that American TV shows are written by a team of authors coming up with ideas on a per episode basis. In the UK things are done as a script by one person (or maybe two) much like a movie, it is then more difficult to come up with a large number of episodes as they do in America with guest writers etc. A notable recent exception is My Family which is produced in an American style (as noted in the article) and does indeed have more episodes per series.

Team based writing works best for (American style) sitcoms which are composed of a series of short jokes and thought up during a brainstorming session. For dramas it seems to lead most often to only 10 good episodes of a 22 episode season actually telling a story and the rest being filler. Focus groups suggest that Bob is most appealing to audiences so someone writes more episodes focusing primarily on "Bob". This leads to most dramas having a large Soap-Opera component, while in British dramas just a story-with-conclusion.

Things are changing though and more shows in the UK are being produced by teams of writers. Doctor Who being an example of this. Caffm8 17:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]