Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 November 15

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.

November 15

How to make a meme

How do I make a successful Internet meme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

By being original, imaginative, and creative, rather than having to ask other people. Seriously. See also internet meme.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a stupid photo, put some stupid text on it, and post on 4chan.[1][2][3][4] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't. You put what you've made on the internet and either people find it interesting (for any one of a variety of reasons) or they don't. I would venture that there are so many variables in this process that the mechanism for controlling it does not exist. Although imagination and creativity may help, they are not the only factors involved. Britmax (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else tempted to change the heading to "How is meme formed?" UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Son... I am disappoint.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

what is this music?

What is the music in this youtube video play starts at 1.59?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMi4XTy_5tc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLCA094F2FDD3EB4E0 139.184.30.131 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

3D!

Is it the screen of the 3D tv that makes it 3D?Simple answer please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally no, but with some exceptions. In most cases, the 3D effect is created using special glasses worn by the viewer. Some glasses use LCD shutters opening and closing several times a second, while others have special filters as lenses. In each case, the glasses only permit the eye to see the image meant for that eye, then the brain puts the two images together and you perceive an image in three dimensions. One exception is the new glasses-free screens as seen on the Nintendo 3DS and some new cell phones. Here it is the screen that produces the 3D effect, in that (basically) every other column of pixels on the screen is meant for one eye. Again, the brain puts things together and you see 3D. --McDoobAU93 16:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

However, you probably need the screen to do something different than normal, even in systems that use 3D glasses. For example, if every other scene is meant for the opposite eye, then you would want to display at twice the refresh rate and brightness, to avoid jerkiness or dimness. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

True, but the higher refresh rates (usually 120Hz or higher are recommended for good 3D) are also available on 2D-only HDTVs, as well, so while the settings for 3D are different, a lot of 2D TVs have the same settings. The high refresh rates on 2D TVs supposedly improved color fidelity and produced sharper pictures; check out this article from about 4 years ago, when TVs with the higher refresh rates started appearing. --McDoobAU93 19:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Source Code

In 2011's Source Code, I don't understand how something that has already occurred ends up being undone. Granted, if some unforseen glitch in the link-up allows the mind of Gyllenhaal's character to continue existing in the alternate reality because of his action preventing the initial train bomb from detonating, that may exist within an alternate, parallel reality. Then, it's entirely possible for him to send Cpt. Goodwin an email message alerting her to the train detonation that did not occur because of him, her and the entire project. But that, again, would all be in the alternate, parallel reality -- it wouldn't be able to cross over into the current reality, in which the train bomb exploded hours ago. Now while this may seem obvious to some, I sense that the film makes it appear as though the bomb never exploded in any reality, generating a sort of fallacy of four terms that is being pulled over the audience's eyes. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your sense is completely wrong as stated in the film repeatedly. He cannot stop the bomb from exploding in the reality that his physical body is in. Every time he goes into the "source code", he is visiting an alternate reality in which everything up to that point is the same as the reality he came from. His actions do not actually change the alternate reality. What happens in the alternate reality is what happens. He is playing part in it. His email was to an operator in an alternate reality that basically said "Hey! The source code thing works. While I didn't save anyone in my reality, I stopped a bomber in yours." -- kainaw™ 17:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, then what's the novelty that was unexpected...was it that they didn't anticipate the potential for there to be an alternate reality possible, but he has discovered that it's there? In what sense is that significant, because an alternate reality has no bearing on a parallel reality, and the absence of an alternate reality is just as remarkable in its parallel reality as no alternate reality at all? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

His job is to use the alternate reality to identify the bomber so they can stop him BEFORE he strikes again in the current reality. So, they are using past history in an alternate reality to direct the future in the current one. As stated repeatedly in the movie, he cannot stop the bomb in the current reality. He can only identify the bomber and he has to do it quickly because this isn't time travel. He cannot go back in as many times as he wants. He has to complete the identification before it is too late to stop the bomber. -- kainaw™ 18:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I know -- I watched the film. My question relates to the last minute of the film, in which the email sent by Gyllenhaal's character to Cpt. Goodwin asserts that the source code is better than they expected -- in what way is it better than expected? And furthermore, how many people watching the film realize that the ending (with Goodwin reading the text sent by Gyllenhaal's character) is no longer the continuous reality of the entire film, but rather a jump into the alternate reality? I think the point is that we are unaware if alternate realities exist, but Gyllenhaal's character is confirming that they do because he's the only one to be able to sense both of them. For the Goodwin at the end of the film, that's her reality, and in it, the next time the source code will be used will potentially generate a further alternate reality. I can't say that I expect most people to get this -- they're probably thinking that when Gyllenhaal's character says "things are better than they thought," that it means that the past can be changed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I felt that the point was hammered so forcefully into the heads of the viewers that a passing cow would understand the concept. The workers with the Source Code know that alternate timelines exist because they have to exist or the thing wouldn't function. They repeatedly state throughout the film that you can't stop the bomb or save anyone because you are in an alternate timeline. They wouldn't keep saying that if they had no idea alternate timelines existed. Since it is beat so severely into the heads of all the viewers that inside the source code is an alternate timeline, I think that it is obvious to everyone who watches it that the end of the movie is an alternate timeline. Further, the whole "things are better than they thought" thing fits with the movies premise: You cannot change your own past, but you can use the history of alternate timelines to direct the future. He is using the history of the main timeline to direct the future of the alternate timeline. -- kainaw™ 13:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright -- I saw that as the anticipated benefit of the source code, rather than something over and above. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WWII films

Britain made some splendid war films in the 1950s (and Hollywood turned out some jolly decent ones in the 1960s). Many of them were of course set in Germany. My question is whether these were ever appreciated or even seen by German audiences. (Dubbing them into German would seem rather bizarre.) And did Germany produce anything equivalent? (I'm familiar with Das Boot, but that came much later and was more of an anti-war film.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Films like Reach for the Sky, or A Bridge Too Far, do you mean? Interesting question. I wouldn't have thought they'd go down too well with a German audience! However, Bridge on the River Kwai might have found an audience there... Sorry I can't answer it but you've put a smile on my face! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think they would want to see one-sided films, the equivalent of Hogan's Heroes, where Germans are all portrayed as either evil or idiots. They might have appreciated a more balanced approach, as you had in some WW2 films. However, they probably just wanted to forget about the war well into the 1950s. Perhaps by the 1960s they were more willing to remember it. StuRat (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Die Brücke (film) (1959) is the only one that comes to mind. It was remade in 2008. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We also have pages on The Last Ten Days (1955), Der 20. Juli (1955), Hanussen (1955), Children, Mother, and the General (1955), Stalingrad: Dogs, Do You Want to Live Forever? (1959), Stars (1959), Five Days, Five Nights (1960), Star-Crossed Lovers (1962), Man and Beast (1963), Naked Among Wolves (1963), and Frozen Flashes (1967). All of them are German WW2 films (some of them co-productions), but I don't know if you'd describe them as shoot-em-up adventures. --Antiquary (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How about German films actually produced during WW2, showing how supposedly evil, corrupt, ruthless and degenerate the Allied forces were? They would be fascinating to watch, with subtitles at least. Ditto for German or Japanese cartoons equivalent to the ones made in the US showing Popeye beating up Axis soldiers and leaders. Edison (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article Nazism and cinema and List of German films 1933–1945 seem to support my initial thought that the Germans tended to produce either heavy handed propoganda documentaries like Sieg im Westen or lightweight escapism like Die Feuerzangenbowle. There are some historical dramas, which rather like Henry V in the UK, make their point by drawing historical parallels; the most famous was Kolberg. There are some anti-semetic dramas such as Jud Süß, but I couldn't find anything resembling the British films that ridiculed the enemy, like The Goose Steps Out. Maybe the Germans really didn't have a sense of humour. You can watch many of these films on YouTube. Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And just to disprove my own assertion about the German sense of humour; apparently they loved the 1980s BBC sitcom 'Allo 'Allo! which was set in Nazi occupied France. Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Other rings in Lord of the Rings

I know that the One Ring in Lord of the Rings makes its wearer invisible. It appears, though, that there are other magic rings in the story too. Do they have similar powers? JIP | Talk 20:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Any of these Rings of Power seemed to render a man who wore it invisible. " (regarding "the 9". There are others.) --LarryMac | Talk 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See the Rings of Power article on the LOTR Wiki - all the rings could confer great power on the wearer, the One Ring especially was supposed to give the wearer quasi-unlimited power. Invisibility seems comparatively weak as regards "unlimited power" - maybe Bilbo and Frodo just didn't have the imagination necessary to truly tap into the ring's potential for wreaking havoc -- Ferkelparade π 21:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think, IIRC from the books, that the One Ring's greatest power was its ability to control the other rings (and thus their wearers); hence "One power to rule them all...etc." That's where the Ringwraiths came from; they were wearers of the original lesser rings of power who became bound to Sauron through the connection to the One Ring. --Jayron32 01:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The other rings don't necessarily make their bearers' invisible. During the books Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel wore the three "Elven rings". Arguably Galadriel's ring helped her keep Lothlórien hidden, which might count as a form of invisibility... Pfly (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The 9 rings given to the men of Numenor didn't turn them invisible. They just wilted away after so long. No idea what their powers were, but Sauron kept them to control the Nazguls/Ringwraiths. The 7 dwarven rings supposedly enhanced their crafting abilities, and I don't recall much else mentioned about them, other than they were mostly lost. The three elven rings didn't turn the wearers invisible either. If so, Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel would all have been invisible. Gandalf's ring was able to control fire (thus his affinity with fire, as seen even in the Hobbit). Galadriel's ring was said to preserve time. In the books, when the fellowship visited Lothlorien, they thought they were there for a day when it was actually a month or so. The One Ring also wasn't quasi-unlimited power. It was crafted with Sauron's own powers, IIRC to make himself seem weaker when he doesn't have it. So when it was destroyed, that part of his power went with it. The One Ring was supposed to have 3 powers, I think. Invisibility, preservation (how Gollum lived so long), and something else. When the One Ring was destroyed, all the rings lost their power as well. So Rivendell and Lothlorien started wilting away, which was one of the main reasons the elves left Middle Earth afterwards. This is all from memory, and I haven't read the books in awhile, so there might be a mistake or two. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Three Rings obviously don't turn their wearers invisible, but it may be noteworthy that nobody (except Frodo) can see the rings until the end of the book, when their power has diminished. Sam sees a "star" shine through Galadriel's fingers, but only Frodo sees it for what it is. So, it may be that the rings are able to make themselves invisible at least. That could also just be because Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf all have much more experience wielding their rings. If the movie is to be taken as gospel, Sauron was not turned invisible by the One Ring either. Matt Deres (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think in the books (at least the Silmarillion) Sauron did not turn invisible either. Tom Bombadil didn't either. But Isildur did. Go figure. Pfly (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently those without magical abilities were not worth seeing. Now, if we could only get a dwarf and an orc to test the theory ... Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hindi Movie : Chand Sa Roshan Chehra!

Hello !

I am been looking for the Hindi Movie Chand Sa Roshan Chehra for long on the Internet but got no success. If some one has downloaded/watched or found on the internet some where .please tell me i will be very thankful.

I am looking for video songs only .

Thank YOu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.252.114 (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Um... this one?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)