Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2007 July 30

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.

July 30

Looking for the title of a late-60s/early-70s movie.

I vaguely remeber a movie about a family of orphaned children. I believe it was set in the American West during the 19th century. If my memory serves me correctly, the children were cared for by a man named "Pizer Peas" who later married the oldest daughter. That's all I can remember, and it's driving me crazy. Does anyone know the name of this film?

• Where the Lillies Bloom. Harry Dean Stanton plays Kiser Pease.--Sethacus 04:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Knights_who_say_ni

There are errors in the article "Knights who say ni". Both of them are located in the "Spamalot" section. The first is "King Arthur refers to them as "The artists formerly known as the Knights who say Ni", a reference to Prince." This can NOT be a reference to Prince as the movie was filmed in 1975. The second is "An example of an improvisation done by Hank Azaria is a reference to being the father of Anna Nicole's baby and Jersey Boys." This is incorrect for the same reason, the film was made in 1975.

My question is how do I go about reporting/correcting/verifying these particular blatant errors?

70.100.70.148 08:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Also see WP:TALK. The Reference Desk is for general questions, if you need help using wikipedia, see WP:HD. Thank you --L^ie! 08:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and fyi, they're in the spamalot section for a reason. See our article on Spamalot, those are very much correct --L^ie! 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes - Spamalot, the musical version of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, was released in 2004. Neil ╦ 11:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What music loop is this?

What's the name, and who is the author, of the music loop in Mikael Johansson's Nibblet? NeonMerlin 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

first woman

who is considered the first real working woman on american tv?she is also a comedian.she is american.she has an article in wikipedia

I don't know if she is the "first" proper. But this was a significant premise of the old 70's TV show, Mary Tyler Moore. (JosephASpadaro 19:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Ann Sothern starred in Private Secretary starting in 1953. I can't say if she was the first, but close to it. Corvus cornix 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Goofs in Films

This has always puzzled me. Perhaps someone who works in, or is familiar with, the professional film industry can offer some insight? It seems that nearly every film has many, many goofs (continuity errors, etc.) in it. Of course, this is much more "pronounced" or noticeable today for two reasons that did not exist way back when: (1) we have home VCR's and DVD's, so we can stop / pause / replay the scene 100 times and notice small errors; and (2) there is the internet and web sites specifically detailing film goofs. This is what I don't understand. If these goofs and mistakes are so obvious to all of us "regular" people ... how in the world do they get by the professional film makers and editors? Isn't this exactly what the job of the editor is designed to look for? Either (A) the goof goes unnoticed by the professional staff; or (B) they notice it, but it is so trivial / minor that they don't want the expense of re-shooting the scene. Can anyone offer any insight on this process? I mean, some goofs are so obvious (for example, whenever there is a running clock in a scene) that you would think these are "standard" things that editors try to prevent ... no? Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 19:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

It is the job of someone to attempt to keep track of continuity during shooting. Being human, sometimes things slip through. In your example of the clock, this is the sort of thing that is noticed during editing and at that point it is too late. It would require a lot of money to resecure the location, bring back the actors, re set the lighting, etc. just to make sure the clock is accurate from scene to scene. Instead, they simply hope nobody will notice or it won't be a big enough deal to detract from the story telling. IrishGuy ^talk 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. But you have simply reiterated what I have stated above. I don't understand how all of these mistakes make it through? After the actors have packed up and left, yes -- it is too late and not worth doing anything. I am asking -- pre-emptively -- doesn't anyone notice this stuff before it's too late? If this stuff is so obvious to the untrained eyes of amateurs, I don't understand how the professional film-makers miss it? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

The "eyes of amateurs" are looking at a two hour final product. That is much easier that the days it takes to shoot each scene. The months it takes to finish the project. Each time a scene must be reshot, everything must be reset. To make it seemless from take to take requires refilling all water glasses, resetting all clocks, making sure that any cigarettes/cigars are smoked down to the exact same place as they were previously, hair is in the same place, etc. That is just plain impossible to do. Errors creep in that only become blatantly obvious during the editing stage. IrishGuy ^talk 20:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. And, of course, humans make mistakes. But, it would seem to me, that Hollywood should have this down to a science by now. They actually have some one on set whose very job is doing this stuff - correct? All those things you mention -- water glasses, clocks, cigarettes, hair -- are such common blunders that it should make the editors that much more vigilant. And -- changing my question a little bit -- how about the bigger blunders? How does the film industry account for that ... and why do they not pick that stuff up? (Example of a "bigger" blunder: using New York license plates in a Texas setting; clearly visible shots of crew in reflections, etc.; actors calling another actor by his real-life name as opposed to his character name; etc.) How does this obvious stuff go unnoticed? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Also, I just thought of this. Can't they air brush (or voice over) some of these mistakes out of the film? (JosephASpadaro 21:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

They're like Easter Eggs! Having them draws more attention to their final product. Like you mentioned before, they're heavily discussed through the internet, adding popularity to their movie! Even if you're movie isn't as great as others, they're still on the same forums due to their secrets. I know if I made a movie, adding goofs (and Easter Eggs) would be something most definitely important. Here in Wikipedia, have you ever looked under the trivia section of a popular movie? --JDitto 21:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I am referring to true goofs -- inadvertent and non-intentional mistakes. Not intentionally placed Easter eggs. (JosephASpadaro 23:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Most movies have a continuity director. When a scene begins, the continuity director snaps photos. Then, the directory yells "action". Then, when the director calls "cut", everyone is supposed to freeze while the continuity director snaps more photos. Those photos are used to ensure everything is in order for the next shot or when doing reshoots. However, time is money and only major things are taken into account. If the continuity director holds up a scene because he/she wants to fix an actors hair, move a cup, unruffle a sleeve, change out a half-eaten sandwich and so on, the director will fire the continuity director for costing too much money. The end result is that each scene is shot dozens (if not hundreds) of times. The end cut is a mash up of all those reshoots. It is expected that there will be continuity issues. -- Kainaw^(what?) 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, ultimately, why hire a continuity director? And again -- I am really more concerned with the big blunders (mentioned above), not so much the minor ones. I don't see how they slip by unnoticed (ahead of time). If I was Steven Spielberg (or whoever) making a movie, and my continuity director let one of these big blunders go through, I would be fuming. (JosephASpadaro 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

First, about the jobs involved. I think "continuity director" is wrong; certainly I've never seen that title in in film credits. It used to be shown as just "continuity" (I presume people would actually say "continuity man", or whatever); in any case, today it is usually "script supervisor". It's that person's job to notice discrepancies between different takes, not particularly the film editor's. However, the film editor could create a different kind of continuity error by cutting to an earlier time in a different take. This might be done as a deliberate choice, but it's the film editor's job to avoid doing it by accident.

Why have a script supervisor? To reduce the number of obvious continuity gaffes. Why not fix all of them when they get missed? For the same reason books and magazines aren't proofread a dozen times to catch all the typos: the people who produce them are in business to make money, and catching and fixing errors costs money. The filmmakers simply assume that the viewer will be filling to overlook a certain number of minor errors, or will be so involved in the story that they won't notice them in the first place. Which is what Kainaw said above.

There's another class of errors, which are those introduced in writing or rewriting. Movies are very often shot with scenes that end up not being used, for example because the director wants to see everything onscreen before making a final decision about what to cut. Maybe there was a subplot where Frodo and Sam (from Austin, Texas) go to Buffalo because Tom Bombadil lives there and they hope he can help them get to Mount Doom, but in fact, although the scene with him is interesting in itself, they learn nothing about how to get to Mount Doom. They go back to Texas, consult a travel agent, and fly directly to Mount Doom from Houston International Airport. Now the director, having seen the filmed scene, decides that Tom is just a distraction from the main story and decides to cut the entire New York subplot. Except that there is a street scene in Buffalo where Frodo and Sam talk about the price of rings, which is critical to a later part of the story. They coud go to Austin and reshoot the scene, but that would cost money. They could edit that little bit of Buffalo footage into the Austin footage and use digital editing to change the license plates, but that would cost money. So they edit in the scene as-is, and hope you won't notice.

Or in writing, it may happen that the writer simply writes something that's impossible, or historically wrong, or inconsistent with an earlier part of the movie, and the filmmakers either don't know any better or they think it makes an interesting scene, and once again, people either won't notice or won't mind. And a lot of the time they're right. But, of course, not always. Not nearly always. --Anonymous, July 31, 2007, 08:40 (UTC).

An example similar to the Buffalo thing occurs in "Innocence (Buffy episode)". Buffy and Angel had a confrontation in the front yard of Buffy's house; Joss Whedon decided after shooting it that the scene didn't work, it needed to be in Angel's apartment, where Something Important had previously happened; so it was reshot, but something in later dialogue (I forget what), presumably shot earlier, still implies that the scene was at Buffy's house. —Tamfang 10:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I am still baffled at how the "big" mistakes get through, though. Some seem unforgivable and correctable (e.g., wasn't Charlton Heston wearing a wrist watch in Ben-Hur?). That's simply inexcusable. How can they let that through? Can't it be air brushed out? And ... surely, they can't miss the obvious scenes where film crew members are visible in the shot? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 18:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

You seem to be baffled by the fact that people aren't perfect. People with jobs *much* more important than film-making make mistakes all the time (i.e. forget about Charlton wearing a watch and wonder about the surgeon that sews one up inside your duodenum...). ouch!. Matt Deres 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's take the reverse approach, let me ask which movies you have refused to pay for due to continuity errors. I'm guessing none. Therefore, assuming this is true for almost everyone, why should the movie makers pay to ensure they eliminate all continuity errors when this won't result in more profit ? In that respect, any money so spent can be viewed as wasted, and better spent on other items that will increase sales, such as advertising. StuRat 05:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But, if I authored a book, and later found a typo in it -- I would have it corrected. And I am thinking along parallel lines if I produced a film. Yes, sometimes costs are prohibitive. But -- again -- my concern is catching the obvious stuff before hand, not afterward. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

StuRat's comment reminds me of an anecdote: Henry Ford asked a junkyard operator whether there was any part of Ford cars that never wore out, and the junk man said yeah, he'd never seen a broken kingpin; so Ford ordered that the kingpins be replaced with a cheaper design, because the buyer gets no benefit from having a kingpin that outlasts the car. I think I got this from Stephen Jay Gould. —Tamfang 10:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)