Entertainment desk
< December 5	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 7 >

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.

December 6 edit

Reverse edit

Here, you can see that the mangos are facing (oriented) in one direction (in the center). Although the mangos alternate (in this center), predominantly, the mangos fall in one direction. Where can I find (single sided) paisley banadans that are oriented the other way (the counter part, or reverse, as some would call it)?174.3.102.6 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this movie edit

I saw this movie about 1-2 years ago, and I remember I really enjoyed it, but I cannot remember the title! Can someone help me?

It's about an American Missionary going to a country like Brazil or something, and there's one scene where the villages of the place he's at tells him not to sleep with his feet uncovered or us the rats would chew his feet. And so he fell asleep with his feet uncovered and his feet were chewed up. The next day the missionary told the villagers that God would heal his feet, and so the next day or two he was able to walk.

Anyone know what movie that is? Thanks. 05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Moptopstyle1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

I don't remember the plots of it very much, as its been YEARS since I last saw it, but the most prominent movie about missionaries in Brazil was the film At Play in the Fields of the Lord. I do remember liking it a lot, but I don't remember that specific scene. --Jayron32 03:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's not it, but thank you.

There was also another scene, if it helps, where he goes to the Village's Post Office to pick a telegram, and the Missionary was narrating what the Telegram a. And he said "STOP" a few times. And, ha! I forget what the telegram read. Another scene is where 3 of the Brazilian girls sold themselves or something to some men on a ship? I think so... So if that helps. Moptopstyle1 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

The Other Side of Heaven? IMDb mentions rats eating the soles of somebody's feet[1].--Pleasantman (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thank you! "The Other Side of Heaven" is right! Thank you! Oh, I didn't know the Missionary was Latter Day Saint. Ha. Moptopstyle1 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, It's not really explicitly mentioned that he's LDS, but John H. Groberg was from Southern Idaho, did attend Brigham Young University, and then (in real life) became a General Authority for the LDS Church. Additionally, a small portrait of then-president David O. McKay is visible in the church meeting scenes. Kingsfold (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit OT, but the reason he said "STOP" a few times is because a period/full stop was transmitted as the word "STOP" to avoid mistakes. You can read more at http://www.telegraph-office.com/pages/telegram.html.Bunthorne (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone Know House of Heroes? edit

So, do you know about them? And please don't tell me that is not a question for Wikipedia.. The REAL discussion page hasn't been touched since 1990. (well, it seems like) So, this is kind of becoming a discussion page right? I think so. Moptopstyle1 08:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What you think isn't all that relevant. What the consensus is, is relevant. This page is not a discussion page, as it explains in the header. And the talk page for House of Heroes was last edited the day before you edited it which was not in 1990. Dismas|^(talk) 08:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about the House of Heroes talk page, I was talking about the actual Discussion Pages that leads back to articles. I don't like how it's set up. The reference desk is much simpler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, still have no idea what you're talking about. The RFC page that you linked to was last updated yesterday by the bot that is in charge up updating it. And no discussions are supposed to take place there. It's a listing of pages with discussions on them. Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and delete this question. Moptopstyle1 05:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

Animated series like Ben 10 edit

My young son is a big Ben 10 fan, however he has now watched all the DVDs of the original series and Ben 10: Alien Force. Can anyone recommend any other animated series in the same vein that might appeal to him? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's "Danny Phantom", and I think they still play that on Nicktoons, and that show is about a teenager who is actually part-ghost. There's "My Life As A Teenage Robot" which is about a robot teenager. (ha, ha)

A lot of the Nicktoons are pretty good. "Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends" is pretty good for kids.

Or, better yet, check out Common Sense Media and this page will give you a list of Children's Cartoons that will tell you what age group that cartoon is appropriate for. I love that site. Moptopstyle1 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

When he gets older, he might like Green Lantern. I couldn't help but think of GL while reading the Ben 10 article. Dismas|^(talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York and college football edit

Why is the state of New York so bad at college football? This result is surprising considering that New York has at least two strong reasons to be good at college football:

First, American football is certainly a very popular sport in New York. Consider that it has not one or two but three professional teams: the New York Giants, the New York Jets, and the Buffalo Bills.

Second, New York has the third-highest population of any state in the United States, so there should be a large pool of high school players from which New York colleges can recruit. Consider that almost all the other high-population states have historically elite or near-elite college football programs (this list is descending by population):

California - USC Trojans
Texas - Texas Longhorns
New York - glaring lack!
Florida - Florida Gators, Florida State Seminoles, Miami Hurricanes
Illinois - okay, this is the other exception besides New York, but even the Fighting Illini and the Northwestern Wildcats are better than anything New York has
Pennsylvania - Penn State Nittany Lions
Ohio - Ohio State Buckeyes
Michigan - Michigan Wolverines
Georgia - Georgia Bulldogs

Who does New York have? The Syracuse Orange? The Army Black Knights? The Buffalo Bulls? Even if we include New Jersey (as right next door to NYC and where the Giants and Jets are actually based), we only get the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. Putting it charitably, these are not exactly elite football programs. So why is New York so bad at college football, considering that they should have popularity and population advantages over most other states?

—Lowellian (reply) 16:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to maintain strong programs. Look at teams like Michigan and Notre Dame. They used to be among the elite, but they don't scare anybody now. That's true of teams like Army also, which used to have one of the strongest programs in the nation. Fordham used to be good too. These things ebb and flow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's hard, and things ebb and flow. You're not answering the question, though. I'm asking why New York specifically does not have an elite program, when all the other high-population states do. New York does not put teams into the Top 10 or even Top 25 the way the other high-population states do. You can't say that Army or Fordham (the latter merely Division I-AA), over the past thirty years, has been anything like the teams I've listed from other high-population states. You mentioned Michigan and Notre Dame -- they may be be having down years right now, but both were in BCS bowls just three or so years ago. You can't say that about any team from New York. New York definitely underperforms relative to its population, and I'm asking why. —Lowellian (reply) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I can account for Army's weakness -- being a military academy makes for stringent admission standards which make it difficult to recruit an elite football team. But the question is why New York doesn't have elite state university system football programs like other high-population states do. —Lowellian (reply) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is the wrong answer, but the reason could have been that somebody had a thought about what the main purpose of having a state university ought to be./Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are two contributing factors: First, there is not a large public state college in one location in New York equivalent to the University of Texas, University of Florida, University of Michigan, University of Georgia, etc. etc.; SUNY is spread out over many small campuses without a central collection of alumni and support. The aforementioned state schools all have graduate schools of law, medicine and business that generally create a pool of well heeled alumni to support the expensive nature of a big time college program. Second, and this is more observation than provable fact, is cultural. New York high school athletes are spread across numerous minor sports (swimming, wrestling, lacrosse, etc.) and not concentrated in football. There is no "Friday Night Lights" equivalent in New York to compare with places like Texas and the Southeastern states where football is a semi-religious experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtrp050 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University used to have a major football program, but it has collapsed recently, along with most of the Ivy League. Woogee (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That just backs up my original point, though. Like the rest of the Ivy League, the Columbia Lions are Division I-AA, and thus certainly cannot be considered to be an elite college football program in the modern (post-WWII) era. —Lowellian (reply) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York University (NYU) disbanded its football team in the '40s for economical reasons (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,885939,00.html). An attempted revival in the '60s was unsuccessful (http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/research/arch/175/pages/footb.htm) --Nricardo (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that weather plays a role. A kid in Florida, Texas, or California can do sports outside year round. The same can't be said for New York. Look at the major football powerhouses, and in high school they're all southern states. In college they're usually southern states, although there are exceptions. On the other hand, many superb basketball schools at both levels are found in the northeast. Basketball, surprise surprise, can be played inside just as well as outside. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I have a hard time buying the "cold weather" argument against New York because Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all cold weather states, too, which isn't stopping them from fielding elite college football teams. —Lowellian (reply) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Division I college football long abandoned the northeastern U.S., despite being essentially formed there. Today, there are only 5 Football Bowl Subdivision schools in New York and New England, and none are anything close to a national power, this is despite that area being the most densely populated area in the U.S. In football's early years, it was played almost exclusively by schools that would later form the Ivy League, mostly private, privileged northeastern schools. Large public institutions never really took hold of football in the Northeast. The first public schools to really embrace football were those of the Western Conference (later the Big Ten) and the Southern Conference (today the SEC and the ACC.) The smaller, private schools found themselves unable to compete with the larger public schools in terms of attracting the best football talent, so most of them became irrelevent by the middle of the 20th century. Since New England and New York lacks many of these larger, public schools, they lack the impetus to develop large football programs. The SUNY system, for example, lacks a "large flagship" school like say the University of Michigan or University of Texas, so there isn't a way to "concentrate" the football talent like in those schools. The University at Buffalo is the only Football Bowl Subdivision team in the SUNY system, and its perrenially bad. In the rest of the Northeast, none of the state-supported schools is generally large enough either. By contrast, places that don't have powerful football traditions have strong college basketball traditions. Since you only need 12 people to field a competitive Division I basketball team, as opposed to the 85 on a football bowl subdivision team, smaller private schools can compete on a more even footing than their larger bretheren. It is rare to find a school which is both a basketball and football power. If you had to press me as to why New York specifically lacked a football power, I would say that it's the organization of the SUNY system which lacks the sort of "flagship" school that other states of a similar size have. --Jayron32 02:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a piece by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who suggested that if there isn't much else to do, you devote your energy to rooting for, and supporting, the State University's football team. Where there are more entertainment venues, both indoors and out, there is less thrust to build major college football programs, most of which are actually profession teams with unpaid labor. New Yorkers apparantly support pros teams who call themselves pros. Such was Moynihan's thesis. B00P (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me of the canard "The best pro football in Michigan is played in Ann Arbor"... But it does not explain how Pennsylvania can support the Steelers & Eagles AND the Nittany Lions, or how Texas ends up with the Cowboys AND the Long Horns. Its an interesting idea, that the prevalence of pro teams ends up hurting nearby college programs, except it doesn't really hold up. Heck, Florida has 3 pro football teams, and still has 3 top-tier college programs. --Jayron32 03:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Cowboys-overshadowed Houston Texans! ;) But yeah, I'm pretty sure having nearby NFL teams around doesn't weaken college football programs (if anything, as I wrote in my original post, I suspect they are correlated: nearby NFL teams increase the popularity of football and lead to more high school students playing football). Besides the examples User:Jayron32 has mentioned, there's also California, which also has both strong college programs and three NFL teams (Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers). —Lowellian (reply) 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be mentioned that Fordham had a major football program before WWII -- see Seven Blocks of Granite -- as well as Cornell, Colgate and the above-mentioned Columbia. Army was the dominant program of the 40s, even after the war ended. And don't discount Syracuse, the alma mater of Jim Brown, Ernie Davis, Floyd Little, Larry Csonka and Jim Nance. New York state was once an absolute hotbed of college football. The question is why that changed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with everything that's been said above about the political economy theories. College football was a fairly cheap sport to run pre-WWII, but very expensive afterward, because of (1) major advances in safety and medicine, making it simply unethical to field a team if you couldn't afford to prevent and treat injuries, (2) major advances in transportation and radio/TV that made long-distance rivalries possible. When the Bowl games started, they were a once-in-a-year chance to play a team from far away; now, few major programs think twice about piling 100 people on a charter plane to travel 1,000 miles for an October game. At a certain point, the university has to think long and hard about where to invest its money. The midwestern/southern tradition of having a single flagship school with a huge student body and the ability to attract non-alumni to their fan base makes it much easier for a U. Texas or Ohio State to field a team, and much harder for a SUNY-Buffalo/Oswego/Long Island/Binghampton/Etc. to compete. --M @r ē ino 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music Program Query edit

I need help with something!

I am a very creative guy, I've created more than 10 techno songs on my computer using program "Techno E-jay"... I subscribe myself as Survived Miscarriage, but that is not important now...

Techno E-jay is not really a program with lots of options. The main question is:

"What is the name of a program that allows you to create psychodelic and techno music that has lots of options to work with?"

The subquestion is: "Where can I find the full version of the program?" - you know that you can only download a demo from the internet.

Please, answer if you know the asnwer :)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miscarriage (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try one of the following:

—Lowellian (reply) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock of Ages Musical edit

Wikipedia article lists the musical score for Rock of Ages and omits "Keep on Lovin You" written by Kevin Cronin. The song is listed in the musical credits in the Broadway Playbill. Do you know if it is performed in the show and, if so, at what point in the show?

John Lennon edit

Was John Lennon ever charged for assaulting that Radio Personality guy at Paul's birthday party back in 65 or 66? What had happened is that, the Radio Personality made a comment on John Lennon's vacation with Brian Epstein and commented "Did you enjoy your honeymoon?" (and Epstein was known for being gay, and the Radio Personality known for his humor) So, did the man drop charges on Lennon? I read Lennon actually broke some of the man's ribs. Yikes. Moptopstyle1 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

An alternative way to say "Give Peace a Chance". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Ha ha! Nice one! But he kind of changed as he got older! With the whole "Lost Weekend" with May Pang! Ha, ha. Yeah, I do like him more as a musician. And I forgot to add (sorry about that)

HE WAS DRUNK WHEN HE ASSAULTED THE MAN. Sorry for not clarifying that. Moptopstyle1 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that being 'drunk' is ever an acceptable excuse for assaulting someone. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, John Lennon later did apologize for assaulting the man. Hm, look what I've started! Okay, since the Anniversary of Lennon's Murder is tomorrow, I'll ask a more positive Question in Respect of him. Moptopstyle1 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 December 6

Contents