Entertainment desk
< January 9	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 11 >

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 10[edit]

golden globes guests[edit]

whos allowed into the golden globes besides publicists and media?68.151.25.115 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing nominees and their guests, plus anybody with $17,500 to spare ~~(this year)~~ (this year six years ago). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was in 2011.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Fast forward five years, and this site claimed in 2016 that it's by invitation only.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagam Bhag 2006 Hindi[edit]

1. The commissioner shot Vikram in Self-Defense, so why does Commissioner get Arrested in the End of the Movie?

2. Will the Commissioner still have to do Jail Time why?(73.220.163.13 (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

It happened because the writer wanted it to happen that way. As it is fictional, no-one will go to jail. Wymspen (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is one sort of answer, but 73.220 may have been intending to ask for an answer within the scope of the fiction. In other words, does this movie (I assume it's a movie) establish a reason why the commissioner is arrested, and does it imply that the commissioner will go to jail? I have no idea; I don't watch Hindi movies; but the question is not unreasonable. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get it, and well put. But we do have also have users who seem to think that such questions about fiction are unanswerable, merely because "a wizard did it" is always a potential, though unhelpful response. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe such questions cannot be answered, and the reasoning is much deeper than suggested. There are two perspectives on any film - that of the team which made it, and that of the viewer. The writers may have based their story on an accurate understanding of Indian law - or they may just have thought that it made a more dramatic ending to have him arrested, and then leave the viewers to try and understand what happened. It may therefore mean that the writers themselves did not know why it happened, or what would have happened next. Then, from the viewer's perspective, it is up to the individual to arrive at their own understanding. Is that how the law does work, or should work, or is it a commentary on the corruption or inefficiency of the system? Do you, as a viewer, think he should go to jail, or is this a grave injustice? There is no right answer - you have to reach your own conclusions. The only really valid answer to the original question is, "I don't know - what do you think having watched the film?" Wymspen (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Often a shooter is arrested because the police do not know (with enough certainty) that the shooting was in self-defense. Or maybe the arresting officer is a corrupt ally of Vikram. —Tamfang (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]