Entertainment desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

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.

June 20

Location/name of the bridge in final scene of Les Miserables (film version with Liam Neeson)?

I want to know the name/location of the bridge in the final scene (credits rolling) of the Les Miserables film (Liam Neeson version). I have searched Google and Wikipedia but could not find the answer. Some sites suggest the film was shot in Czech republic. However, perhaps the bridge is in Paris? Thank you for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.86.66 (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to a clip of the final scene? I (or someone else) might be able to ID the bridge by its appearance. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB page for this film has a short note of thanks to 'the people of Kutná Hora' which is indeed a town in the Czech Republic. Richard Avery (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the one? (I Googled "Kutná Hora bridge"). Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. After a bit more Googling it seems that the bridge in the picture that I linked to is actually Charles Bridge in Prague. There doesn't seem to be a large river in Kutná Hora. There's a small stream called the Vrchlise[1] but that yields precisely zero hits on Google, even with an advanced search in Czech. I suspect that it's not going to have a notable bridge. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tv / movie / comic idea. How to present it?

If a rank amateur with no previous experience with the entertainment industry felt they had a good idea for a movie or TV show etc how would they go about getting some interest from media companies? Brad (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disappoint you, but the answer likely is "you can't". The chance of being successful at getting your idea ready for public consumption, via traditional media channels, is literally about as good as winning the lottery. Your best option is to publish and distribute it yourself via the tubez, and hope that it gets enough hits to be noticed; be aware that there is a lot of noise out there (other people doing exactly what you are) so it is very hard to get noticed. --Jayron32 12:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayron mentions, it's going to be very hard. If it's just "an idea", (e.g. "imagine we do Survivor, but in an office park!") it'll be close to impossible. Networks hear 5 second pitches like that all the time - ideas are cheap, it's the execution that's the tricky part. If you are serious about getting your idea made, you'll need to do more - draft scripts, executive summaries, etc. I really don't know what all is needed, and it likely depends on who you're going to be pitching it too. Your first step in the traditional route would probably be engaging the services of a literary agent who works with the media you're targeting (note I said first step, not easy step). Two notes: even if you are in Nebraska, the agent should be in New York or LA, as it's more important that a decent agent have in-person meetings with producers than in-person meetings with you. Secondly, be *extremely* wary of an agent who wants to charge you - it's almost certainly a scam. Legitimate agents make their money when they sell your script/idea. This means that even getting an agent will be hard, as they won't waste time on you unless you can convince them you have a chance of success. - If you want to go the non-traditional route, I'll second Jayron's suggestion of producing a low-budget version yourself, and putting it out on the internet. As mentioned, execution is the hard part, so if you show your idea can be made into something halfway decent that other people like, it's more likely to get picked up. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with using YouTube and the like to present one scene. It's sure to look rather amateurish, but that doesn't much matter for comedy. Some of the funniest shows look rather amateurish, like South Park and Robot Chicken. Tell all your friends and family to take a look. If it's funny, they are likely to tell their friends, and so on, until word-of-mouth spreads to Hollywood, and you start getting calls. Be sure to post ways they can contact you. You might want to just give a web address, though, as otherwise you might get too many annoying calls from fans. StuRat (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write it as a play or novel, and hope that its a hit and gets adapted. Or publish it online and hope it gets a following. 92.24.177.159 (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts

Resolved

In martial arts films they often have a master take on many opponents at once, and beat them all. I assume that beating the dozens of opponents shown would never happen in real life, but just how many competent martial artists have been defeated at once by a master ? (I realize that "at once" is subjective, as with more than, say, a half-dozen, some would have to wait their turn, as they couldn't all physically reach the master at once. However, I suspect that the record is more like 2 or 3, so this limitation hopefully won't apply.) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too uncommon to read about one person, not even necessarily a martial artist, fighting off three or even four attackers [2], [3], [4], etc. Often times, muggers will target people who they don't expect to fight back, so if they do fight back, they may be scared off (conversely, they may pull out guns and shoot the victim too [5], so no guarantees). It depends on your definition of "beating" an opponent, I suppose. Is scaring off a group of attackers (because they thought you were an easy target, and you weren't) considered "beating" them, or do they all have to be unconscious on the ground? You must define your terms carefully before you can receive a valid answer. Buddy431 (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that Sturat wants to know if real life has ever had fights mirroring those in martial arts movies. "Beating" I would take to mean "beating up" with all opponents knocked out as you put it. Kinda off-topic, I know, but this makes me think of the Ghurka who fought off 30 Taliban... 69.154.182.24 (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He used weapons and a machine gun tripod, not martial arts. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "made me think of" I meant that it only reminded me of Acting Sgt. Pun, not that it was actually something like Sturat was looking for. 69.154.182.24 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the person being attacked have to fight his assailants with just his bare hands, or can he use impact/bladed weapons too (e.g. baseball bat, dagger, katana, nunchaku, socket wrench, etc.)? 67.169.177.176 (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the "master" won't use any weapons besides his/her own body. If anything, the other people ganging up on the "master" will be armed...69.154.182.24 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't give you a definitive answer as to the record number of enemies a "master" had defeated barehanded in real life, but having quite a bit of experience at hand-to-hand combat, I can give you the following "rules of thumb" as to what is reasonable in a real-life fight: One can defeat up to three (or maybe four) unarmed, relatively inexperienced attackers of about the same size only if the guy being attacked is an expert martial artist; alternatively, a martial arts expert can defeat one attacker who has a bladed weapon and/or is much bigger than the defender; or one attacker with the same level of experience; or, one can defeat an attacker who has a stick and an additional unarmed attacker. As for an attacker with a firearm, an unarmed martial artist can only defend himself if the attacker puts the gun within 0.7x his armlength. Any fight with more attackers than that is probably staged. FWIW 67.169.177.176 (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. I had guessed at 2-3 competent opponents, and you said 3-4 inexperienced opponents, which sounds like somewhat less than "competent", so we're probably right in line with our estimates. StuRat (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One competent opponent, or two at the very most. Three or more can beat even a world champion to a bloody pulp. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also ask a follow-up: The same films will also show a one-on-one fight go back and forth, with one person winning, then the other, sometimes several times. I assume that's BS and pretty much the eventual winner is going to take control of the fight right from the start. Is this correct ? StuRat (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; if they have a similar amount of experience, it could go back and forth once or twice (assuming both fighters have good defense skills and block almost all of each other's attacks). What is BS is when the fight drags on for several minutes -- with the amount of damage the fighters inflict on each other with each blow they land, one or the other will get knocked out cold pretty fast. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assume then, that you're unfamiliar with mixed-martial arts? I would never confuse an MMA sporting event with a real-life fight, but it's no lie that fights can and do go on for several minutes. Under Pride Fighting rules (which allowed more vicious and/or dangerous strikes than in the UFC), the first round went for ten minutes and it was certainly nothing unusual for the fights to go three rounds (ten minutes plus five plus five, though there are obviously breaks between rounds). Matt Deres (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I'm a karate blackbelt but I don't have much interest in MMA. (I prob'ly wouldn't do so well in MMA anyway -- my big strength is distance fighting, while MMA is more about close-in/floor fighting.) From what you said, though, it's possible for a fight to go on for an extended period of time if and only if each of the fighters is tough enough to absorb any blow the other one lands. However, from what I know about MMA, punching and/or kicking attacks are mostly used only in the initial part of the round, while most of the rest of the round involves the fighters wrestling on the floor and trying to choke each other. If the whole fight involved only punching and kicking strikes, I doubt it could have gone on for ten whole minutes. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, plenty of fights stay on the feet for a significant portion of the time. Or even consider sports such as muay thai or the lower weight classes of American boxing (the big guys tend to just lean on each other too much...) where they're essentially on their feet the entire time. While it's obviously true that the extended fights can only go on if and only if both fighters can withstand what the other is dealing out, it's sometimes crazy how much damage a person can apparently suffer and still continue effectively. In UFC 116, for example, Brock Lesnar was basically pummeled continuously by one of the strongest punchers in the world (Shane Carwin) for five solid minutes and then came back to win the fight in the second round due to Carwin gassing himself out in the first round. Or consider the most recent UFC contest where Joey Beltran and Aaron Rosa beat on each other in the most extraordinary fashion for most of the three round fight, essentially landing haymaker after haymaker on each other's skulls and exchanged a friendly high five afterwards to celebrate the enjoyable experience. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring regulated fighting, a quote from hand-to-hand combat training in boot camp may be relevant: "If your fight lasts longer than 10 seconds, you don't know what you're doing." The big difference is that in regulated fighting the purpose is to win. In war, the purpose is to kill. -- kainaw ™ 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military hand to hand combat generally involves weapons. Googlemeister (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen people clean house a couple of times before, but it's usually against a bunch of inexperienced (and intoxicated) people, and it never (both times I saw it) ended up with a bunch of unconscious people sprawled out across the area. Usually one or two of the leaders getting stunned or knocked out will suffice against a small group (4-5ish) of toughs.129.128.216.107 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I've marked it resolved. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]