Entertainment desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

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.

February 25

HP7

Will the Deathly Hallows film be the first movie ever made to be split into two parts? JCI (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it. For recent history, consider Kill Bill. Additionally, The Hobbit films may well release before HP7 (no idea their respective schedules). The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, while not "two parts", is almost certainly a more impressive technical accomplishment than an HP7 dual-film. Almost assuredly many others have preceded these. — Lomn 02:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples:

The Three Musketeers (1973 film) and The Four Musketeers
Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources (Manon of the Spring)
The first attempt to film The Lord of the Rings was intended to be done in two parts, but only the first part was actually made

--Anonymous, 05:20 UTC, February 25, 2009.

During the 1960s, there were two dramatic foreign feature films on same subject, one from male point of view and other from female POV, which opened simultaneously in New York in two different theaters. I think they were French films. Does anyone know the titles? Pepso2 (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's Grindhouse (film), released in 2 parts in Europe, Steven Soderberg's Che (film) originally shown at Cannes as one film but released in 2 parts, and Clint Eastwood's pair of films Letters from Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers (film). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that Back to the Future II and III were made simultaneously. —Tamfang (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there was also a film version of Charles Dickens' Little Dorrit that was made into two films. the first, 'Nobody's Fault' was told from Arthur Clenem's point of view and the second, 'Little Dorrit' was told from her point of view. Same events, two films, differet POV.63.146.74.132 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember those two as overlapping but not entirely contemporary, because Arthur is a generation older than Dorrit. —Tamfang (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Kutcher And Trucker Hats

What Trucker hats have Ashton Kutcher worn? Full and complete, etc., list would be most appreciated.96.53.149.117 (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has likely worn many hundreds of different hats, and there is no guarantee that anyone bothered to document them. You know, he may wear a hat out to the grocery store, and no one may bother to write that fact down. Even if we restrict ourselves to his hats he wore in actual produced TV shows, I would doubt (not guarantee that it didn't happen, just doubt) that anyone bothered to create such a list. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Von Dutch is one brand I can recall having seen him wear often. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you even care about this?

Old Post

Nope not 4 Non Blondes's What's Up, kick ass song as it is: [1].96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long guess about misremembered lyrics: Dave Matthew's Band, "So Much To Say"? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, unfortunately.96.53.149.117 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it simply must be this. It's got the what's up, the baby, what more could you ask? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-UJGvE8vnQ 129.176.151.10 (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it kind of sounds like a rock song if you plug your ears....129.176.151.10 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok hold up, was Fu-Schnickens as big in Canada as the US? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q7bpMiiVlA 129.176.151.10 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, none of any of these songs......96.53.149.117 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]