Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 April 28

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.

April 28

Question

Am I the only person in the world who thinks the GameCube is better than the Wii? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 08:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, The Wii gaming library has more 3rd party support than the GCN, and the Gamecube had more quality control. Most of the 3rd party Wii games are utter crap (and I usually have an open mid about these things), also its harder to deign a game for the controllers than you might think (hence the reason why the 3rd party low-budget games suck). Even though the Gamecube had a smaller library than its competitors and games with poor audio compression, it still followed the conventions of a game console, where as Wii went a whole different direction. But, I'm the kind of person who thinks Super Smash Bros. Brawl is just an overly hyped, glorified version of Super smash Bros. Melee. I still play GCN games, but I do praise the wii for some aspects, and I still play N64 and fret that I can't put a cartridge into a Wii and don't want to buy a dumbed down version off of the virtual console. Sorry I went off topic. I don't think you're the only person who thinks that but I'm fairly neutral when it comes to the "Generation wars." — Kjammer  ⌂ 08:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, The Reference Desk is for more factual information rather than opinion. Perhaps you could search Google or similar for a Wii/GameCube discussion forum if these questions interest you? Adam (Manors) 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically he did ask a factual question, whether he was the only person in the world with that opinion, I would have said yes since the wii has all the capabilities of the GC plus much more. It's basicly the Gamecube 1.1, with new features that appeal to the casual gaming market which is what has made it such a success. I will agree with Kjammer that there is an overabundance of crap games for the wii, but they can get away with it because the casual gaming market isn't as good at telling bad games from good as the hardcore gaming market. Mad031683 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the third fourth 'question' you've asked about how good the GameCube is. I'd hate to see you accused of asking promotional questions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Wii contains all the necessary hardware to play GameCube games with (as far as I know) 100% perfect support, I don't see how the GameCube could be "Better" in terms of capabilities. Another way to look at it is that the Wii is a GameCube that can also play Wii games.

If you're asking about some other way of defining "better", then you'll have to specify.

Frankly, your post sounds like sour grapes phrased as a question. APL (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see this as a factual question, or how we can help. I'm sure if he truly wanted a definite answer he would take the time to survey his community until a Yes came up, somehow I don't think that will happen and I agree with APL's sour grapes theory. Adam (Manors) 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cycle

I have a video and game rental store in my town that does not have GameCube games, but has Nintendo 64 games. Does anyone else have a store with a similar style to this? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 08:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As above, this is for providing factual information that you have been unable to obtain elewhere, not a place for surveying others on the facilities available to them. Adam (Manors) 15:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where to get manga in its native Japanese outside of Japan

I put this in here because Manga is a form of entertainment, right? Does anyone know of a good website that I can order Japanese manga in its native form in the United States? Or any international site that ships to the U.S.? I can probably use Amazon.co.jp but I would like to be able to read the fine print (I know beginner's Japanese) and I'm not sure if they can take international orders. Can anyone in this RD help me? Thanks. (dynamic IP address) 137.229.58.32 (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The obvious eBay comes to mind. Just note, most manga uses Furigana - so if you aren't reading Kanji yet, you'll still be able to read it. You could always buy from Amazon.com in North America [1] though obviously the selection will be less than the Japanese counterpart. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't recommend this site personally, but they claim to sell Japanese language manga. SaundersW (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake personality

<moved from miscellaneous desk> IS Avril lavigne fake personality or is it just an act and she is totally different when she is away from the cameras?Makey melly (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reference desk is for more specific questions that can be answered by facts, not opinions. I can guarantee you that no one on wikipedia personally knows Avril lavigne, so it is highly unlikely that you will get the answer that you are looking for.--Dlo2012 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can you make such a guarantee? Algebraist 14:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Magical powers. Don't you have any? 79.66.99.37 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I left them at home today. It however is not uncommon for those who live their lives under the scrutiny of others to take on a public persona. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Acting like you're somebody else gets me frustrated. Think outside the box 15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if what you see on camera is the real Avril or not but either her or her persona seem to think glorifying bullying is a good example to her fans. Exxolon (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Magical Starsign VO

In Magical Starsign whenever your characters are attacked/preform an attack, there are little yells. Who was the voice actor(s)Emma Hordika (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Answering Machines on F.E.A.R.

Does anybody have or know where I can find the manuscripts from the answering machines on the game F.E.A.R.? 198.110.49.105 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nintedo game counsles:

Is the Nintendo game company making more of those game counsles? I'm just wondering.Chessmate92 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Which consoles? The Wii? If so, then the answer would be yes. Dismas|^(talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they stopped that production run of the Virtual Boys. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Who

I've never seen an episode of Dr. Who. (I know... I know...) So, I'm basically looking for info like what was provided for Terry Pratchet a few days ago. What would be a good DVD to rent from Netflix that would introduce me to the series? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 21:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't use a modem to get online do the following: do an "advance search" with google or yahoo and look for "Dr. Who" TV online free. Then check out which of the sites you like, they will have different episodes available. Some are going to be duds that are "subscription only". It will take quite a while to load but you can watch the episodes in sequence and when you want to without having to depend on some TV stations' program director. WARNING! Use firewall and very good virus protection and adaware or the like. I guess you have already looked at the Wikipedia page. --Lisa4edit (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there are two rather different popular versions of Dr. Who (and a lot of unpopular versions). Basically, there is everything before the Tom Baker series. Then, there is the exceedingly popular Tom Baker stint as Dr. Who. Then, there is everything after Tom Baker until the show was canceled. There is even a movie which has every Dr. Who except Tom Baker (who thought that would be popular?). Then, there is the reincarnation of the series that is running now. So, you have a choice. You can watch the Tom Baker episodes (in just about any order - they are mostly all good). Or, you can start with the new series. If you have a lot of time, you can watch both. An advantage to watching the old ones first is that you'll see many nods to the original series in the new one - including many returning characters. -- kainaw™ 00:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Doctor Who was first shown in 1963, but was discontinued by the BBC in 1989. This is known as the "Classic Series". A TV film was made in 1996 (strictly for fans, and not for all of them, either: don't start there) In 2005 the series was relaunched. This reincarnation is known as the "New Series". It follows on from the original series, with the same character, backstory, universe details, but differs in style to suit the modern audience: 45 minute (generally) stand-alone episodes, higher budget special effects and so on (It takes a fan to fully appreciate the cardboard sets of the early episodes). It is best to start with relaunch: "Series 1" (2005). The first episode "Rose" is designed to introduce a new audience to the Doctor and his world. Over the course of the series, explanations are made about the Doctor: that he's the Ninth incarnation, he's a Time Lord, travels in a TARDIS and so forth. Don't get hung up on all the detail: it all gets explained as you go along. So, to cut a long story short, start at Series 1 (2005) Episode 1, and work your way through at your leisure. By all means, rent or buy the DVDs. This is the preferred, legal, recommended route, and provides the BBC with the revenue to continue making the episodes. Enjoy! Gwinva (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(and I must take exception to Kainaw's comments: while Tom Baker was excellent as the Fourth Doctor, some of us have different favourite incarnations). Gwinva (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A show about a time traveling alien with a fetish for London is just not realistic. Green t-shirt (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. If you read Other (Doctor Who) it turns out that he is the genetic reincarnation of a Londoner. ("The Virgin New Adventure Human Nature, by Paul Cornell, obliquely implies that the Other was a Victorian scientist who built a TARDIS-like craft and travelled to Gallifrey when its people were still primitives." And if that's not to your taste, be sure to burn Jules Verne, Edgar Allen Poe and Mark Twain's works for good measure) Not to mention, he is expressly an eccentric for his species; a fetish for a backward, similar-if-simpler version could almost be seen as rustic. Of course, there's something to be said for science /fiction/ not lining up nicely with /realism/ for some reason that escapes my feeble imagination at this hour... -- Ironmandius (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you live in the United Kingdom and have a TV lisence, you have the right to view free episodes on this site. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got people hooked to the older incarnations of the Doctor, by introducing them to the 2005 series and on. For some David Tennant is a gateway drug. Also, you could check out some of the Big Finish Productions radio plays, which span several doctors. Oh and while your at it, if you like that hokey scifi charm, go ahead and take a stab at the first three seasons of Red Dwarf. Cheers, AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add that whatever you may think of the 'Classic' doctors (I'm a Tom Baker fan) the production values of the new series are much better than the old. For someone new to Dr Who I would strongly recommend starting with Christopher Eccleston for that reason alone. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a fair statement. I prefer the endearing quality of low-budget - but that can be very off-putting to new fans. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree with DJ Clayworth that someone completely new to it should start with the new series, probably at the beginning (Rose) since it assumes a new viewer. It's much more watchable for a modern viewer. If you like it, you might then want to view some of the older stuff.

I'd suggest that everything Kainaw said should be taken with a pinch of salt (I can't tell if there's sarcasm in there). Dr Who before Tom Baker was hugely popular, and it continued to be pretty popular after him. Personally I think the Peter Davison episodes are more accessible for a modern viewer who hasn't been 'trained' to Dr Who; look past the poor special effects and there are some really interesting ideas being tried out. If you're going to watch Tom Baker episodes, avoid the later seasons when he'd lost interest and was phoning it in (until you're a fan).

The Five Doctors is a quite fun classic story (sort of) featuring the first 5 doctors, made as a special thing for the 20th anniversary. It's available as episodes or spliced together as a film. You might enjoy it once you've seen a couple of episodes of classic stuff; my brothers and I laugh our way through it (although I don't think it's really meant to be that funny). Sadly, it doesn't feature William Hartnell as he was dead by then, but it does feature an actor playing William Hartnell playing the Doctor! It sort of features Tom Baker, but he didn't film any new stuff for it. Having agreed to be in it when they asked, he then cancelled pretty last minute and they had to write him out using previously unseen footage from Shada, an unfinished Douglas Adams authored episode. It was popular.

If you're watching Peter Davison episodes (once you've watched some newer stuff), avoid Timeflight and The King's Demons like the plague. Just about anything else, you'll probably enjoy.

Whatever you do, do not watch the Children in Need special Dimensions in Time (which features 5 of the 7 classic doctors surrendering their dignity alongside Eastenders 'stars'. This was made after Dr Who was cancelled) nor the 1996 TV movie, a horrendous attempt at appealing to a mass American market to get funding for a relaunch that just removed all the best bits, added a love interest and set the adventure in America. Americans hated it. It was oddly popular in Britain for such an appalling film; I can only assume people were desperate for any Dr Who. If it had been made for fans it might still have sucked, but at least it wouldn't have been set in America nor have added a love interest. Watching either of those before you have decided you like Dr Who could put you off for life!

Please do buy or rent the DVDs. Not only does it provide funding for more Dr Who (yay!), it also lets the BBC know that there is a market, which secures not only more new Who but funding for restoring old episodes. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Any episode where a new "assistant" or "companion" is introduced is probably a good place to start, as the whole thing needs to be explained to the companion, and the audience gets the benefit of being reintroduced to the whole premise of the show. For specifics, I echo everyone else's recommendation that you start with Rose (Doctor Who) from 2005. APL (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)