Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2008 May 4

Entertainment desk
< May 3	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 5 >

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.

May 4

Dylan Songs

I've had an idea for many years - rather stupid, but it keeps coming back. I would like to build a list of songs that were written by Bob Dylan (and possibly performed by him) but made popular by someone else. For example, "All Along the Watchtower" was made popular by Jimi Hendrix. The problem I keep having is that it is difficult to simply get a list of every single song he wrote - let alone pick out the ones he wrote for other people. All of the lists I find are songs he recorded. Does anyone know where I can find a list of all songs he wrote - or have examples of songs he wrote but gave away to someone else to make popular? -- kainaw™ 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is this site, it hasn't been updated since 2002, but still looks pretty comprehensive. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This site [1] claims to have all the lyrics. Alternatively you could check through all the 49,900 hits on googling for "written by Bob Dylan" :-) --Lisa4edit (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Those sites look promising for getting a list of every song he's written. Now, I'll see if I can write a google scraper to pull the artist for any that were top10 hits. -- kainaw™ 14:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shooting Star in Jaws

I looked at the "Jaws" (movie) page to find the answer, but didn't see it there, (perhaps I missed it?), but I was wondering; is the shooting star in the movie real, or was it edited in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.88.103 (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stars, shooting or otherwise, would not be visible in any commercial film, unless filmed through a telescope. Except in very rare circumstances, they simply do not produce enough light, and of course the chances of a shooting star actually appearing at the right moment are very small.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ed con) Hi 69.16, could be ur-film legend. This[2] and [3] say it's real; this discussion[4] explores both. Was there more than one in the movie? Was it footage linked in? If you can add the item to the article without it being trivia, verify it, and ta-da-ah. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, a sufficiently bright meteor would show up on a standard film camera, no doubt. Actually being lucky enough to capture one is the issue. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actors "starring" in animated films

In recent years there has been a trend for the makers of animated films to employ bankable box-office stars to do the voices for the leading characters. They can then advertise the film as "starring" such-and-such a big name, even though the star doesn't actually appear in the film, only their voice. This seems to be a mix of cynicism and desperation to me, as though studios realise they can't get audiences for their latest kid-friendly film without the additional draw of a big name. It also seems to be part of the whole crossover trend whereby Hollywood never makes films just for children these days, they have to appeal to adults as well. (The children who would normally be the core audience for these films couldn't care less about the big-name stars doing the voices, they just want to be entertained.) Walt Disney never cared about hiring stars to voice his films, and they are no less entertaining as a result. When did this loathsome practice begin, and what other reasons are there for it? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It started with voiced animation. Walt Disney himself gave his voice to Mickey Mouse (I don't know about his acting skills but he was already a big name), and Mae Questel voiced Betty Boop. Why wouldn't you hire good actors to produce a good film?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget Disney's use of Cliff Edwards to voice Jiminy Cricket. Deor (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But in these cases, were the actors' names used in the advertising for the film? Were the films advertised as "starring" those people? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This argument is based on the assumption that actors are only doing the work for the money. The reality is that the actors are asking to do voice work. Just consider a small example of The Simpsons. There is a long line of celebrities who have asked to be in an episode. The producers aren't going door-to-door dropping bags of cash to force a celebrity to do voice work. The animated films are the same. -- kainaw™ 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From an actor's point of view, while getting paid is undoubtedly something that they like, another important point is that generally speaking, voice acting is a very short-term commitment -- more often than not, you can record your lines in a week or so, even if you're making a full-length movie. Compared to a live-action motion picture project that can tie an actor up for months, it's obviously attractive work, even if it doesn't pay millions. (That said, for the big movies, it definitely does; Cameron Diaz apparently got 20 million bucks for Shrek.) In any case, the studio belief is definitely that a big name will draw in the big crowds -- even if they aren't that good voice actors. As a general point of interest, Billy West expressed some insightful (and understandably bitter) opinions on the celebrity voice actor thing during the Onion AV Club interview he did a couple of years back. It's a good read and provides a lot of insight into the difference between an actor and a voice actor. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we've talked about "why", but what about "when"? Remember Who Framed Roger Rabbit, where Jessica was voiced by a major star and she wasn't even credited? (Okay, actually it was two stars, as a different person did her singing voice. Neither one was credited.) That was only 20 years ago; when did it start changing? --Anonymous, 04:05 UTC, May 5, 2008.

That question is clearly answered in the voice acting article: "For much of the history of North American animation, voice actors had a predominantly low profile as performers, with Mel Blanc the major exception. Over time, many movie stars began voice acting in movies, with one of the earliest examples being The Jungle Book, which counted among its cast contemporary stars such as Phil Harris, Sebastian Cabot, and Louis Prima. The film which truly brought about this modern perception, however was Aladdin which was marketed with a noted emphasis on Robin Williams's role. The success of this film eventually spurred the idea of highlighting the voice actors as stars of a film, this becoming the norm in movie marketing, with a greater focus on hiring Hollywood celebrities for name power, rather than performers with more experience in voice acting. " -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly the point I was making in my original post. Thanks for the reference, Cap'n. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is hiring celebrity actors to do animation voice work more "loathsome" than hiring celebrity actors to work in live-action films? Voice work is acting and requires talent. Will Smith, for example, is arguably not the greatest actor in the world. The producers of I Am Legend could have hired a talented relatively unknown actor for a fraction of the money but they know people will be more likely to go if Will Smith is in it. The producers of Shark Tale made the same calculation. People do recognize voices and like certain actors. Hollywood is simply giving people what they want. --D. Monack | talk 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the Billy West interview linked above, that should give you some idea why using celebrity actors instead of skilled voice actors might not be considered such a great idea. Obviously, there isn't any absolute truth here; in the end, a voice is a voice, and either it works or it doesn't. But West does bring up a good point in that if you're paying, say, 40 million dollars just to get some celebrity voices, when you could use that money to not only hire cheaper (but more skilled) voice actors and otherwise actually use that money in a way that increases the quality of the final product, it can be argued to be counterproductive, at least as far as the artistry goes.

Then again, if the name recognition is a major marketing factor, it may be worthwhile to spend all that money on what is very likely to be a worse performance but more publicity. And typically, these performances really are worse -- nowhere near as good as those delivered by veteran voice actors, who really are very, very skilled at not only altering their voices but conveying a great deal of emotion and character with their voice alone, whereas more conventional actors typically aren't. Exceptions do exist, of course, but as a general rule, a Billy West, a Mel Blanc, a Harry Shearer, a Tress MacNeille or a Mark Hamill is going to do a hell of a lot better job of it than a Cameron Diaz or a Will Smith. It's just a whole another level of skill.

If your main concern is enjoying the best possible viewing experience, it's certainly not at all unreasonable to wish that the actors were as skilled as they possibly can be, even if the word "loathsome" doesn't enter into it. (And I'm not saying that Diaz or Smith are bad actors, but they simply don't have decades of experience with using their voice, and only their voice, to convey emotion and character... or the inclination to learn that trade.)

On the other hand, West's annoyance with using unpaid voice actors' auditions (voice actors typically put a lot of work into creating characters' speech patterns, voices and other vocal characteristics) as material the celebrity actors will then attempt to emulate is pretty nasty -- someone does all the hard work, and then someone else just copies them and gets the big paycheck. That, at least, strikes me as fairly loathsome. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

At least one of those voice actors, Mark Hamill, is also a regular actor, so it is possible to do both well. The part I'd find most loathsome, if I were a voice actor, is getting paid far less while doing a far better job than regular actors. StuRat (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems Pixar goes with less famous celebrities who can deliver a certain quality to the character. (Craig T. Nelson as Mr. Incredible or Patton Owalt [Ratatouille] would never be cast as 'the star' in non-Pixar films) Whereas Dreamworks, Sony Pictures, and Fox Animation all go for big names for the poster. (Are Renee Zellweger [Bee Movie] and Halle Berry's [Robots] voices really the best voical talent for those roles?) --70.167.58.6 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The loathsome practice to which you refer also extends to classical music such as Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf and Benjamin Britten's The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra, both of which these days never seem to get an airing without some "big-name" actor reading the narration, something of which I'm sure both Prokofiev and Britten would both heartily disapprove. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whats going on with Roger Clemens and stuff?

Havent heard a thing since January. Can anyone clue me in?--Baseball and and and Popcorn Fanatic (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what "stuff" you mean, but our article on Roger Clemens seems to be bang up to date. I suggest you read it and come back here if you have further questions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I know about the congress investigation and all that(sorry, shoulda said "February"), but I meant- What is happening lately? Is there a webbsite that explains , and I dont mean just "explain", I mean live it? The suspense is killing me. I was really hoping you guys would know! You're all pretty smart.Smarter than my stupid friends.--Baseball and and and Popcorn Fanatic (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article goes all the way through May 2, 2008. Are you in a panic to get information on just he last two days since May 2? Why don't you move in with Clemens so you can watch him every second of every day? -- kainaw™ 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, hardy har har and all that. It probably would be a good publicity stunt to Baseball Fantasy camp it, by living with him for ten years, but I live with my mother and she would have no one to verbally sh*t on anymore. May 2 was the last edit, but the controversy stuff only goes thru February. Me, like other baseball playing and baseball collecting peopleoids want to know. Was he telling us facts? Or things that arent true? We're hanging like an old Shazam episode (the two parters).--Baseball and and and Popcorn Fanatic (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the article (in the controversy section):

On May 2, the Daily News reported a stripper in Detroit called a local radio station to say she had an affair with Clemens.

To me, that appears to be news updated as of May 2. -- kainaw™ 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in again, but I meant the steroid stuff. I didnt even know about the Detroit thing. I also didnt know that Detroit had strippers. There's even more fascinating things about Detroit and surrounding communities if you click here--Baseball and and and Popcorn Fanatic (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

HE MOVED TO QUATEMALA AND CHANGED HIS NAME TO FIDEL CHAVEZ OK? geez just read a newspaper dude, seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.6.145 (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

News flash! Clemens releases a statement admitting to making mistakes, but categorically denies repeatedly vandalizing Andy Pettite and Jose Canseco articles; claims some Guatemalan named Chavez is responsible. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all over the sports and baseball sites on the internet on an almost daily basis.How up to date do you want?hotclaws 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)