Entertainment desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 17

American patriotism in sports

this is the wikipedia refernce desk, not a forum for opinions on third party websites or what we think of Americans

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've noticed that there are some Americans in websites like Yahoo! Answers who seem to be proud that sports like American football are only very popular in America, and occasionally get upset that baseball and basketball are popular worldwide. I'm not saying that all Americans are like that – in fact, I know that those people are the minority. However, why are there such people in the first place? I've never seen an Australian who was proud that Australian rules football is only popular in Australia, an Irishman who was proud that Gaelic football is only popular in Ireland, or a Japanese who was proud that sumo is only popular in Japan. On the other hand, I've also never seen an Englishman who was upset at the fact that football, rugby and cricket are popular worldwide, or a Canadian who was upset that ice hockey is also popular worldwide. Why is this the case? Is it American exceptionalism again? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually find it hard to believe. Can you give us an example? HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can't find a link for some reason, but I could have sworn I saw such answers before. I'll try searching. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind, I found a quote taken from [1]. (Emphasis added) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maybe thats why americans still love football,,,remember when baseball was americans favorite sport....influx of foreigners changed that.....remember when hockey was great in the 80's...influx of foreigners has changed that... lets keep football american.

"Is it American exceptionalism again?" Yes. I see you're from the Philippines, so perhaps the situation is different. American men are often quite defensive about their national heritage and traditions. Internationalization can be seen as lessening the purity of "exceptional" American inventions. It's parallel to the fear of a Chinese Century. I would also compare it to the feeling that "you discovered the artist before it was mainstream." You have a special claim to something because it's your own, and when other people can enjoy it, it might not seem as personal. As the quoted commentator indicates ("remember when hockey was great"), there is an increasing nostalgia for days when America was more unquestionably the world's only superpower. That's my take on it. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not expressing my personal opinion on Americans; I was stating my general perception of American xenophobia. Xenophobia is a valid topic of encyclopedic inquiry. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every country has its xenophobes. It's just unusual to see it expressed in that way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In terms of this statement being "unusual," I do believe there's a lot of xenophobia that's only spoken about in hushed tones (or through anonymous comments), that goes unreported. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

1) When other nations copy a sport invented in your nation, and then beat you at it, just about anybody would be find that upsetting (pun intended).

2) As for American teams hiring foreigners, who may not even speak English, to play for them, that makes the team no longer representative of the city it's supposed to represent. It's not bad if there are just a few, but when nobody on the team is even from your city, it's hard to think of them as your team any more. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American professional sports teams have always been about "mercenaries". Natives of a given city or even the team's state seldom play on their teams. That's why they make a big deal about it when it does happen, as with Joe Mauer or David Freese, for example. (Freese was not actually a native, but was raised in St. Louis). College teams are more likely to have players from one's home state, although that's not so much the case with the top-tier schools who do national recruiting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's correct. 100 years ago, the teams were mostly made up of locals. StuRat (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1912 World Series: Smoky Joe Wood (born in Kansas City, played for the Red Sox)
Rube Marquard (born in Cleveland, played for the New York Giants). Shadowjams (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said "mostly", not "exclusively". StuRat (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about the heritage / native-ness of players for professional sports teams, I would agree that the situation has changed considerably over the past 100 years. I would attribute that mostly to the high degree of foreign immigration and to the increased mobility (e.g. National Highway System) and undoubtedly to the invention of the airplane. I would say the only reason keeping NCAA players "locked down" to a particular school is the fact that schools are still somewhat differentiated from one another. Whereas most major cities are 99% the same (so to speak), I would say there are very deep cultural differences among different colleges. I wouldn't be surprised if free agency comes to college football within the next 20-30 years, though. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are films that have a lot of special effects or animation so expensive to make?

I've never understood why films with a lot of special effects or animation need to cost so much. Yes I know that the actors and staff need to payed a lot of money, but the same is true for all films, not just big-budget films. If they can pay for the software and equipment needed for making special effects, then why does it seem they have to pay for it every film? Royalties? For example, Pixar is an animation studio, so they already have the software and computers needed, and yet each film has a budget of >$100,000,000. Why is this the case? How do they get so expensive? is it just the salaries for the stars and staff, or they have to pay for the software as well? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this question before and from what I remember it breaks down to the huge number of people that effects and animation requires. Yes, you have the editors, directors, (voice) actors, and producers that you would have with, for example, a live action romantic comedy. In addition to all that though, you have literally teams of animators working 9-5 who need to be paid. If you are using some sort of motion capture, you still need to pay camera operators, grips, etc. to perform all their actions while scenes are being acted out. And then once the action is captured, you still need to work on having the animation laid over the motion capture. Dismas|^(talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The division of labor is going to mean your headcount is very large. Each person in the process is going to handle a different technical aspect. They usually specialize in one thing (such as rigging or modeling) as an expert in that field and are paid handsomely. The budgets definitely vary depending on the production values of the company. I remember reading that Pixar animators create a few dozen frames per week (something like a second or two of the finished product). This means the attention to detail and peer review process are the main costs. Yes, it would be only middlingly expensive to create a middling product, but box office returns are only likely when extensive work has gone in. It's worth considering that many animation tasks are now being outsourced from the United States to countries like China and Korea with lower labor costs.

Other than the HR aspect, the equipment expenses are massive - licenses for Autodesk Maya run over $3000, and Pixar uses their own software, the development of which is also costly. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of software, with advances in computers and software moving so quickly, it's not hard to imagine that studios would have to buy lots of new equipment with every other picture that is made. Let's take Pixar for example. According to List of Pixar films, they release a film about every 1-3 years. In three years, today's top of the line computer system could be laughable by the standards three years from now. And software is moving ahead as well. Studios have to produce films that look as good or better than people expect them to. If the films look like they were made three years ago, that will have an effect on the bottom line at the box office. Dismas|^(talk) 07:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I didn't think of that. I know the rendering hardware which interpret the models, special effects, lighting, etc. take as much as 7 hours to render a single frame. As the movies become more and more visually complex, that rendering hardware needs to be upgraded, in order to keep render times "low." Moore's law would come into play here. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting to note that Wall-E took a total of 654 person-years to program. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film length in meters?

This site lists the length in meters/metres for the film Say yes to love (article needs help if anyone is interested). Is this a standard sort of thing for Bollywood films? Does this mean anything to the viewing public? Has Bollywood managed to get the public used to the idea of how long a 3000 metre film, for example, is in minutes? Dismas|^(talk) 10:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if that sort of thing matters because it's such a subjective measurement. Film frames can conceivably be of any size, and the number of frames per second will drastically alter the length of the physical film. So a 24fps feature film would be considerably shorter than a 29.97fps television production. I believe concerns (or lack thereof) over length of the physical film are pretty much the same between Hollywood and Bollywood. CaseyPenk (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not subjective at all. 35 mm film frames for motion pictures are a standard size, and until the advent of digital projection, virtually all theatrical films have been shown at 24fps and mostly on 35mm film. The measurement is of more use to those in the film industry who understand these things than to the general audience member, but it's a standard measurement thanks to the global popularity of 35mm, and prices for things like development and printing are generally quoted by length not time. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to check out this calculator that you can use for any film. It's made by Kodak so I suppose it uses their proprietary film for measurements. Or perhaps all film is of a standard length (not sure). CaseyPenk (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although it is a rougher estimate, the number of reels gives you a good idea of the length of the film. In Hollywood, reels are 2000 feet long and a feature film will have around five of them. CaseyPenk (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be size * fps. Ginink (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the de facto criteria for an YouTube video to gain 2 million views?

Why do such videos are watched by millions of people? 123.24.124.142 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, videos that reach the 2,000,000 milestone are usually somewhat entertaining. A YouTube search shows that the top videos are mostly music videos, while some are videos for entertainment, such as Charlie Bit My Finger (video). Another key factor is if the video is frequently liked, shared, or recommended by viewers to their friends. I hope that helps. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you a set of criteria, but it appears the subject is being studied academically. You may find the two papers here and here interesting. The first suggests a strong correlation between number of views and how many times a video is liked, commented or added to someone's favourites, with a "magic number" of 400 views generating one of these three events. Average ratings, interestingly, appear not to correlate with the number of views. The second stresses the social media aspect of YouTube as critical to how it operates - in other words, "popularity" spreads via the actions of socially interlinked viewers. Ka renjc 15:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting mentioned on TV news/current affairs shows also helps a LOT in spreading the word. But usually by then, it's already became "an internet sensation", and this coverage helps it "go" even more "viral". By the following week, most everyone's forgotten about it, as if it had never happened. Andy Warhol, where are you? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read a quote by Gary Stein that succinctly summarizes the concept of viral entertainment: "...(The message) must generate either the pleasure of laughter, the shock of surprise, or the irritation of doubt. That's pretty much it. You can combine them in exciting new ways..." CaseyPenk (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Mary J Blige 2001 or eariler song that sounds like it has violins?

What is the Mary J Blige 2001 or earlier song that sounds like it has violins? Initially, the violins come in at a medium rate and about the middle or so of the song, an orchestra comes in with a big sound. The song seemed to be a mixture of hip-hop and classical. I remember it hearing it in 2000 or 1999 (it could have been in 2001). I listened to a few of the Mary_J._Blige_discography#Singles, but nothing seemed to fit. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be "Give Me You", from 2000? (Spotify link). You'll also find it if you search for "hg19UfnKSc0" on YouTube. matt (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The pace of 'Give Me You' is too slow and the violins are not as prominent in the song I remember. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is her best hit ever, even if it wasn't her highest on the charts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--GkU2UuHeE μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: Family Affair (Mary J. Blige song) (2001).[2] The violins don't seem as prominent as I remember. -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Prime Time Soap (Drama?)

If my memory serves me right as to the timeframe, there was an Australian TV show with a glamourous soap opera format, similar to the US's Dynasty or Dallas that was aired on PBS in the late 1980's. (Perhaps the mid 80's up to the mid 90's.) What struck me most other than the wicked plots were the seaside settings (Sydney?) and that many of the characters had dark hair, making me wonder if they were italian. Can anyone suggest the name of the show I am thinking about? (Neighbours and Sons and Daughters aren't even close.) μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Home and Away, which has been going strong since 1987 and is set in "Summer Bay". Its cast list must stretch into the thousands by now, and I'm sure all races, sexes, hair colours and what have you have been represented.

Family and Friends involved an Italian family, but it was cancelled after 3 months and was never shown overseas afaik. Pacific Drive and Paradise Beach were both set on the Gold Coast of Queensland.

If not any of the above, have a browse through Category:Australian television soap operas. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did look through the category, that's how I found out about some of the titles. Home and Away is no where near as glamourous. There were no kids as on Paradise Beach. ~~It looks like it might be Pacific Drive but I haven't been able to find all but one 97 second clip and the actor, whom I don't recognize, is American!~~ μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a clip of Pacific Drive. I think perhaps what I am looking for was better described as a drama due to the higher production values. The characters were adults of two generations, most with dark hair. The settings were business offices, luxurious homes and seaside settings. The continuing story arcs were of the soap opera type, but I don't remember the cheap pratfalls and underwear scenes that make Pacific Drive look more like a daytime US soap. Maybe an American editor remembers seeing the show on PBS? μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like Return to Eden—late 1980s, set in Sydney, made as an Australian Dynasty or Dallas, wealthy lead characters and lots of scenes in luxury homes and offices. It was based on a popular three-part mini-series which was shown in the US (a woman's boyfriend tries to kill her with a crocodile, she has plastic surgery and seeks revenge), I can't find any indication the series was shown on PBS though. --Canley (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is it! I remember "Jike" and "Stiffanie" (to my ears) quite well. Can't believe I forgot the crocodile thing, but I didn't see the original miniseries, and only four or five episodes over all. And it looks like most of it is available on youtube. Thanks to you and all. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]