Entertainment desk
< September 1	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 3 >

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.

September 2[edit]

Looking for actor's name in Taking Woodstock[edit]

What's the name of the actor who played Elliot's lover in the film Taking Woodstock? I tried to find it in IMDb, but since I don't know the character's name, that wasn't helpful. Nick Graves (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Dean Morgan according to this link. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bob dylan and the beatles[edit]

what was the relationship between the beatles and bob dylan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean personally, or in terms of their respective bodies of work? It's an interesting subject and one I have thought about quite a bit. Dylan was arguably more advanced than the Beatles, both lyrically and musically, in the mid-60s. He put out Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited in 1965, the same year the Beatles came out with the poppy Help! and Rubber Soul LPs. Rubber Soul showed the Beatles turning weird around the edges, but it was still basically a pop record; it took another year for the Beatles to come out with their masterpiece, Revolver. The two 1965 Dylan albums were far ahead both musically and lyrically of the two Beatles records that year. Dylan turned the Beatles onto cannabis in 1964 (this is well attested). There's also a famous scene in the Dylan film Eat the Document of him and Lennon, probably doped up to their eyeballs, in the back of a limousine together. In 1966, the year Revolver came out, Dylan came out with another great acid-fuelled record, Blonde on Blonde. After that, their bodies of work began to diverge considerably. The Beatles took a retrograde step from Revolver with the patchy Sgt Pepper, then became decidedly ragged with the White Album as their band relationnships began to fall apart. Dylan had his motorcycle crash and, when he recovered, abandoned the acid-fuelled rock style of Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde in favour of the softer, countryish stylings of John Wesley Harding and Nashville Skyline. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interpreting the original question to mean in terms of their art, not in terms of them personally. But perhaps the OP can clarify this. Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper is patchy?! Anyway, it is also possible that the Beatles influenced Dylan to go electric. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!? Good Morning Good Morning? Not the best of John's work. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, until Sgt. Pepper came along, most albums were "patchy", i.e. individual songs stitched together artificially like a patchwork quilt. The Beatles spent like six months putting it together, and there is at least some concept of a theme to it. By contrast, the Please Please Me album was done in a single night's recording, and is definitely "patchy", although it's also very listenable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I say Sgt Pepper is patchy, I mean in terms of its quality. It's got one stone cold masterpiece (A Day in the Life), a few decent tunes and a whole lot of dubious filler. As for its "theme", that's a pretty half-baked attempt to overlay some kind of coherence where none exists. As a collection of songs, Revolver is far superior. The "Beatles influenced Dylan to go electric" argument doesn't hold up, I'm afraid. Dylan went electric in 1965, but the Beatles had been using electric guitars since 1962, and groups like the Shadows even earlier. But they were pop groups, and Dylan had no interest in pop. Before he went electric, he was a folk singer; his innovation was not to turn pop into rock (that's what the Beatles did), but to turn folk into rock. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes but we know Dylan introduced them to marijuana, even though people were smoking it long before Dylan or the Beatles were around, so I'm not sure what you mean. What I mean is that at the same time he started getting them high, he may have thought "hey this electric stuff might not be so bad". Adam Bishop (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an artist says another artist influenced them, I believe it. If we perceive there to be the presence of the influence of one artist's work in another artist's work, I think that is just as likely attributable to our own perceptual shortcomings. I wouldn't say that one artist influenced another artist in the absence of attestation to that. Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles and Dylan are very different, though in some ways the same. They both come from backgrounds that do not prepare them all that well for music making, therefore they are both reliant on finding that which suits them both personally and musically. (I could be wrong about this; it is just my hunch, or impression.) Dylan is of course an individual; the Beatles are a group of four. Dylan is more verbal than the Beatles; the Beatles are much more accomplished as musicians. I don't know that any influence can be established between the Beatles and Dylan. Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, You've Got to Hide Your Love Away is John doing Dylan. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was more interested in their personal relationship. Was there a mutual respect? Were they both fans of the others work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these separate questions? Having respect (or disrespect, for that matter) for another artist's work does not imply any personal relationship at all. They have to have met and spent time with each other to have had a personal relationship. Whether Dylan and the Beatles ever spent significant time with each other, I could not say. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They did. Dylan introduced The Beatles to pot, and became a personal friend of theirs. Dendodge _T\^C 21:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cannabis thing is not disputed, and I mentioned it upthread. Care to provide evidence for your second assertion? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 21:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were never really close, but there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that The Beatles (John especially) would hang out with Dylan regularly. I don't have anything to hand, but I'll scour my bookshelves. Dendodge _T\^C 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25th anniversaries of charity singles and events[edit]

This coming Christmas Season marks the 25th anniversary of the original "Do They Know It's Christmas?". Next February marks the 25th anniversary of "We Are the World". Next summer marks the 25th anniversaries of Live Aid and Farm Aid. By any chance, would there be any commemoratives coming out? Now I'm not using Wikipedia as a crystal ball or something like that. Are there any talks to commemorate the 25th anniversaries of the songs and events I've just mentioned?69.203.157.50 (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stones / Beatles era[edit]

Both bands were established in 1962, but which band was more popular at that time? "Please, please me" was only released in Nov.'62 which became popular, what about "Rolling Stones"? Understand they were already quite popular in beginning '60s, or even more popular than "Beatles" before the Fab4's "Please, Please me", can you please enlighten me about both bands and comparison between them / critics about their popularity/ability during that period of time? There were some that say the early Beatles stuff were of low quality / bubble-gummish, while Stones were more Rock. Your comments please.219.74.128.72 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the differences can be explained by looking at the influences of the two groups, and how they formed. The time in Hamburg, playing a sleazy club and backing strippers, playing "standards" certainly influenced the Beatles to become more pop music oriented, whereas the Rolling Stones were formed out of Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated, John Mayall's Blues Breakers, and Charlie Watts had a jazz background. This led them to a more blues-based sound. As to who was more popular, well as the Beatles weren't playing in the UK, it's reasonable to suppose that the Rolling Stones were more popular at this time in the UK. However, before "Love Me Do" (the Beatles first single in the UK), popular music was very, very different. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at their respective discographies shows that the Beatles were ahead of the Stones. The first Beatles single was Love Me Do, not Please Please Me. Love Me Do came out in October 1962 and reached no.17 in the charts, followed by Please Please Me in January 1963 (no.2) and From Me To You in April 1963 (no.1). The Stones' first single was Come On, released June '63, no. 21. They had to wait until June '64 for their first no.1, It's All Over Now. In terms of their respective images, the Beatles were basically pop boys up until 1966 and the Stones were rockers. It was always said that you could invite a Beatle back home for tea, but not a Stone. The Stones were much more anti-establishment than the Beatles. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the Beatles were always more popular than the Stones. The Beatles' music was much more frequently played on radio than the Stones' was. Around that time, most every young person could rattle off all the Beatles' names, knew that Ringo's real name was Richard Starkey, and lots of other facts about them. And they favoured us with a visit in 1963, from memory, which was huge news at the time. Ask them the names of the individual Stones, and Mick Jagger's name would be the only one that just about everyone knew. The others - varying degress of vagueness. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was 1964 when the Beatles toured Australia. Interestingly, Ringo missed much of the Beatles 1964 Australian tour with an illness; he was replaced by Jimmy Nicol. --Jayron32 21:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jagger thanked us for remembering his name by playing our most famous bushranger in a 1970 movie made in Australia. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Term for when a character mentions the name of a movie?[edit]

I am watching the movie Total Recall and I am just wondering if there is a term for when a character mentions the name of the movie. For example, at one point in the movie Michael Ironside says "he could have total recall in 24 hours". Is there an industry term for when that happens? Thanks Kuato Lives (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be. Most titles of movies, television shows (the title of episode, not the series), books, and songs come from words inside the work. Because it is so common, there is little need to bring attention to when it does happen. More often, attention is brought to situations where the title has nothing to do with the work. -- kainaw ™ 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an out-and-out tell to the audience (which not the case you describe in Total Recall, but is the case in things like Spaceballs) then that's breaking the fourth wall. You might call it the eponymous phrase, but I don't think that's a term in any currency. Anyway, why bother asking us - if you're so darn sure Kuato lives, lives, why not just ask him :) -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TVTropes (as official as you are likely to get on the matter) calls it a "Title Drop" [1] warning! Link is to TVTropes.org. Do not follow unless you have considerable willpower or an afternoon to kill. -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Upright Citizens Brigade, it is the titular line; c.f. title role. You can search YouTube for the "Titular Line Guy" sketch. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one dot in cf.: it stands for confer (Latin for 'compare'). —Tamfang (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Another question, then, would be how often does it happen? For example, how often within the entire Star Trek empire, was the term "Star Trek" actually used? My guess is never. Likewise with the Star Wars series and its six subtitles. A clue could come from the nature of the title. If it's the name of someone, it's almost certain to get mentioned somewhere along the way. An exception, though, would be West Side Story. If it's a musical, the title is probably going to be mentioned in one of the songs. If it's simply descriptive, it's maybe less likely. Most of the Marx Brothers films, as I recall, never mentioned their titles, especially the early ones. If it's a phrase, it might be more likely. One that immediately comes to mind is Suddenly Last Summer, in which Kate Hepburn says that line at some point. On and on it could go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know "star trek" is mentioned exactly once - in Star Trek: Nemesis, when they go back in time to the 21st century and explain who they are to Zefram Cochrane, he says "so you're astronauts on some kind of star trek?" (It was a joke of course, but not quite on the level of Spaceballs. It was pretty lame.) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't he say, "Hey I know you guys! Weren't you on that old TV show when I was a kid?"

Good memory. And you're right, it was lame. The movie was good, though. :) That's almost like breaking the fourth wall, though not as blatantly as one of the James Bond movies where a snake charmer played the James Bond Theme when Bond turned up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's one earlier reference to the title, by Q in Star Trek: The Next Generation. He says "It's time to put and end to your trek through the stars" -- and it was the last episode of the series. --Anonymous, 04:06 UTC, September 3, 2009.

There are many, many trivial cases: for example, the word "Casablanca" is mentioned many times in the film Casablanca. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]