Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 January 23

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.

January 23

on-screen female nudity ..hmm...........

I've always wondered this while watching movies: do female actresses actually have their breasts exposed during scenes like this (where they appear topless but have their back to us but facing another actor/actress, usally male)? like in the film "if only" where Jennifer Love Hewitt's character Samantha opens up her coat to show her surprised boyfriend Ian her naked body: does she have a strapless bra on? (do they actually exist? I'm a guy so i have no idea) and later on in the movie, where Ian and Samantha lie on the carpet next to the fireplace after they made love in Ian's childhood home/cottage, her back is bare as she lies with her front pressed against Ian's body? Also, in the film "max payne" the 'almost' sex scene with mark wahlberg and Olga Kurylenko ,she takes her dress off: is she actually naked or not?/ (the use of body doubles is pretty much out since all 3 mentioned scenes above shows the actress's actual face) if anyone knows anything about this particular aspect of film/drama making, please let me know-- i'm aching to find out!! thanx Johnnyboi7 (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to give some kind of an accurate and all-encompassing answer to this question, because some people really are naked, others aren't. Typical solutions for making an actress appear nude from behind without actually being nude can include the use of silicone rubber or other comparable substances that can be glued onto the actress's body to cover up the breasts and genitalia, so she doesn't actually have to be nude. Computer-generated imagery can also be used to remove bra straps, or to match the face to the body double. Some people just don't think it's that big a deal and take off their clothes, shoot the scene and then put their clothes back on -- perhaps because they're adults and don't freak out at the thought of a naked pair of tits. It really comes down to their individual preference and comfort level (which is, of course, influenced by whether the person in question likes and trusts the people they're working with, for example), more than anything else. (Oh, and the contract they've signed, most likely.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As usual, if this is a topic that interests you, we have an article: Nudity in film. Damn, we have articles on EVERYTHING! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the article only talks about what is shown, not what how the filmmakers and cast handle issues before and during filming. Actually it's a pretty weak article except for the exhaustively detailed US section.

Anecdote: some years ago when I was in England, I saw a short item in a newspaper about a movie or TV show then filming where one of the cast had inhibitions about getting naked for a shot. The director said something like "Look, you can if I can", and proceeded to undress herself. --Anonymous, 05:28 UTC, January 23, 2009.

Janet Leigh wore thin moleskin in the Psycho shower scene. However, it peeled off her breasts in the steaming hot water. She later commented, "Everything was going well, really super, when all of a sudden the moleskin steamed away from my body. What do you do? You have to get the take!" In her autobiography she wrote, "What to do?... To spoil the so-far successful shot and be modest? Or get it over with and be immodest. I opted for immodesty." In Fire on the Amazon (1993) Sandra Bullock covered her breasts with duct tape, forcing shots to be angled so as to not show the duct tape. Pepso2 (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch...that's gonna leave a mark. :)  Buffered Input Output 14:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In the film Arachnophobia, the teenage daughter of the protaganist wears a really obvious second skin body suit in a shower scene, so they are sometimes used. Exxolon (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer the tangential question, yes strapless bras exist. A strapless bra is one without the straps over the shoulders; typically they offer less support, and often have grippy bits so they stay in place. A backless bra is one that doesn't have anything at the back; this is generally getting into 'cup' territory, where you just have a couple of cup things that stick over the breasts. Generally offer very little support. Once you get to this stage you really consider building something into the top/dress instead, if possible. These are all things that have to be considered when wearing clothes that would otherwise show the bra, and which hopefully are structured to offer some support. They don't seem particularly useful if you were filming a nude scene. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Quality control coach"

Several NFL teams now have offensive and/or defensive "quality control coaches." What is a "quality control coach" and what's with the corporate America-style title? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a bullshit title. We do have an article on quality control, however my best guess, being familiar with the NFL and American football, is that these guys main jobs is to do whatever the Offensive and Defensive coordinators tell them to. While there are specific position coaches with specific responsibilities (for example Linebackers coaches and Offensive Line coaches), "quality control coaches" are likely "coaches at-large" or "coaches without portfolio" who help assist the training of the team without having a specific assignment. Its sort of like calling the water boy a "hydration specialist"... it sounds more impressive as a title than as an actual job. Most teams have what is unofficially called a "get back coach"; this is universally given to the lowest coach on the totem pole; the last in seniority. His main job during the game is to roam the sidelines and keep other players and coaches from wandering on the field during play, hence "Get Back Coach". See this google search for a description of the practice. The "quality control coach" sounds like the kind of thing you would put on the W2 form of the guy who is really the "Get Back coach". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

this google search pretty much confirms what I said. The first few links indicate that they generally are always the lowest coach on the totem pole, and they do whatever they are told. It seems that MOST teams use them to break down game film, which basically means spending your time poring over films, and splicing together packages of whatever the coach wants to emphasize, for example "Give me all the 3rd-and-long plays that Atlanta has run over the past 3 years". Its basically shit work. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Name that tune

What is the name, if it has one, of the "Drumming" track from the Dr Who "Last of the Time Lords" BBC trailer ? Scotius (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen the advert but if it's drumming and in an advert then it's almost always either Clubbed to Death or potentially Phat Planet by Leftfield. Both seem to appear in lots and lots of adverts. Kinda like how Sigur Ros's Hoppipola (spelling) is often used by the BBC in a million and one documentary promo-trailer adverts. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like someone actualy playing drums, look on youtube to see what it sounds like Scotius (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also any idea where I can get the Star Trek: In A Mirror Darkly intro theme ? Scotius (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't mean Voodoo Child by Rogue Traders, perhaps? Rmhermen (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

NopeScotius (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen that particular trailer, but how about the Doctor Who theme music written by Ron Grainger of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop and featuring a prominent "drumming" sound. Astronaut (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the trailer linked to in the sidebar here the trailer in question? If so, I don't think the drumming is a specific tune, it was probably created specially for the trailer (it's pretty generic drumming). --Tango (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats the one. Scotius (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Westfield Shoppingtown South County

Hope someone from St. Louis is around... I'm heading there and I was looking for a shopping mall for my 2-year old to run around in and burn all the energy pent up after a long road trip. Westfield Shoppingtown South County is right on my path, so I thought it would be good. Is it an active mall? (A lot of them have closed down.) Does it have any toy stores? Is there a toddler play area? Does it have a restaurant area inside? I can't find any websites about it (Westfield doesn't even include Missouri on its location finder). If "no" to all of that... Where would you take a 2-year old to run around and scream for a few hours in that general area? -- kainaw™ 15:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Earth, that mall seems to be active (cars in the parking lot etc.) and this google search give links to maps and reviews. Of course, it could all be out of date information. As an alternative, and if you and your child like the outdoors, there are a number of small country parks in the South St. Louis area - the Laumier Sculpture Park near the intersection of I-44/I-270 looks interesting, and so does St. Louis Children's Museum about 2 miles further north. Astronaut (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Chuck E. Cheese ? Here's their St. Louis location: [1]. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if it was open because it isn't listed on Westfield's website (in fact, Missouri isn't listed at all).

We will be hitting Chuck E's. We hit every one on each road trip. So far, they've all been the same (in my opinion) except the one in Augusta, GA. That one was gross. The floor was littered with chicken bones. I didn't see any parents taking any interest in their children. Most of the equipment was broken. All in all - a very bad choice. -- kainaw™ 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to avoid this location as well : [2] cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot let this one go. You want to intentionally inflict your running, screaming two-year-old on the innocent public? Very anti-social! --Nricardo (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The trick is in finding two running, screaming 2-year-olds whose screams are exactly 180 degrees out of phase, so they cancel each other, and then aim them at each other, so they keep running into each other, rather than everyone else. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. We went to the mall. They have a toddler area for the kids to run and scream, but no toy stores at all. There is a very tiny Chuck E. Cheese's just outside the mall. It has no toddler area. But, it did the job - two hours of running and roaring at the other kids and he slept for the rest of the day's road trip. -- kainaw™ 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Slumdog Millionaire- flaw in movie-making??

I watched Slumdog Millionaire a few days back. The film used Hindi at the beginning of the movie, coupled with subtitles in English, but just after the protagonist, Jamal Mallick, grew up to be a 13 something boy, they started using English dialogues. I find this utterly inappropriate, since it is impossible for an Indian slumdweller to be speaking in immaculate English. Is this a flaw in the film's script?? They never showed Jamal getting any kind of real education save a scene where he attends school, and the teacher's teaching them The Three Musketeers. How could they overlook such a glaring inconsistency? La Alquimista 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The movie is British. In general, people do not want to watch movies that are not in their own language. So, the movie has to be in English. Some people will watch an entire movie with subtitles or in a weird sounding dialect, but not most people. Since movie making is a "for-profit" business, the film makers want to market to "most" people, not "some" people. -- kainaw™ 18:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be in English. A similar transition occurs in Valkyrie. Tom Cruise's character starts out speaking German and quickly shifts to English, which continues for the duration of the film. In addition to marketing, it's arguably easier to get into a story when you don't have to follow along with subtitles. Tomdobb (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a technique that has been around a while. See also Hunt for Red October (film), where Sean Connery goes from speaking scottish-inflected-Russian to scottish-inflected-English (and Sam Neill picks up a funny Australian-Russian accent too)... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And before that, Judgement at Nuremberg did the same. Maximilian Schell was speaking at the moment of the change. --Anonymous, 05:47 UTC, January 24, 2009.

And to explain the film-makers' reasoning a bit, they want to include a bit of the foreign language, at the beginning, to set the mood for the movie. However, after a while the audience gets sick of alternating between difficult-to-read subtitles and then quickly darting back to the characters to try to follow what's happening. So, they switch to English before the audience gets annoyed. It seems to me that subtitles would be more acceptable if they did a decent job of them, but instead we get white subtitles on a white background and vow never to watch another movie with subtitles again. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Bangladesh have television?

I'm not even sure if they have electricity! I might be going there later this year and I was wondering if they were all wired up. And what kinda entertainment they got featured on the ol' boob tube.--THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at Bangladesh and the links therein, i'd be amazed if there is a nation in the entire world that doesn't have some form of tv (though how prevelent it is in any society is a different question). ny156uk (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not even sure if they have electricity? I'm sorry, but are you serious? Of course they have electricity, and of course they have television. Does this look like the capital of a country that's stuck in the Stone Age? I mean, it's not a futuristic utopia with flying cars and jetpacks, but geez, it's not like they're primitive hunter-gatherers, either. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

FOr being the worlds most curious man, you may be the worlds most uninformed about the rest of the world. Put that curiosity to work my man! See Bangladesh Television and List of Bangladeshi television and radio channels. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Every few years or so, a typhoon takes out the entire country. That's why I thought they were so backass. I figured they gave up on rebuilding a long time ago, and the only people left were clueless poor types.THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The United States, Australia and many other developed countries are hit by natural disasters all the time, but still manage to maintain broadcasting networks. Anyway, typhoons occur in the Pacific Ocean; the powerful storms that hit Bangladesh are generally referred to as cyclones or tropical cyclones. What's more, there are some 150 million "clueless poor types" left – maybe the television's so good they'd prefer to stay and brave out the weather? More than can be said for most countries. --AdamSommerton (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh... okay. I really recommend you go and read our article on Bangladesh and think about it before you say anything else, because I don't think your mouth can accommodate any more of your feet. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't understand what all the hoopla about the concert for Bangladesh was over. And we can't ask George, he's dead. How come the newspaper was all over those CYCLONE WIPES OUT BANGLADESH stories? That country seems to have the worst luck. That's why I figured they were in the stone age, technologically. I hope they didn't have nuclear weapons. The thought of all those missiles floating freely in the ocean disturbs me.

Is there any country besides Antarctica that doesnt have television?THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read about Antarctica as well. You will no doubt find out that it is not a country, but the scientists who are stationed there get TV just like the vast majority of the 6.7 billion people on Earth. Astronaut (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, judging by the news stories we saw about New Orleans during and in the aftermath of Katrina, you might've thought the city was gone for good, but it isn't. Sure, they're still recovering, but it's not like either place was wiped off the face of the Earth despite the fact that they were very badly in need of help at one point. This is not a binary system where something is either completely destroyed or in perfect shape; it's entirely possible for a lot of people to suffer and be in need of assistance without everyone suffering and being in need of assistance. If a lot of houses are destroyed in a flood, for example, the people living there are going to need housing very quickly, but that doesn't preclude there being cities that are not, in fact, destroyed by floods. These things are not mutually exclusive. There are degrees here. And in any case, the disaster took place over a decade ago. That's a lot of time to rebuild the things that got knocked down by the waters.

As for, uh, nuclear missiles floating freely in the ocean... Seriously, man, are you kidding? Or do you think a nuclear missile would somehow bob up out of its silo and just be swept away on the merry tide? Things like that are kept under lock and key. In any case, Bangladesh doesn't have nuclear weapons. (Only nine countries in the entire world are known or thought to have nuclear weapons right now.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a tv station that broadcasts to no one?! In Antarctica?!? Mind control rays beaming from tv towers is the only logical explanation I can come up with for such pointlessly worldwide coverage. Bangladesh certainly doesn't need tv. You'd think they'd use what little money they have for levys, raincoats, et. al. I thought they were poor. Seriously, I thought that thier top export was dyssentry (*ba-dumpt-dump*...?). And if they once had nuclear weapons, they were sold on the black market years ago. Black market clientele are not known for honoring treaty guidelines for nuclear storage. So yeah, I didnt feel it would be unsurprising to see a live stray missile or two bob bob bobbing along in the ocean. I've heard of dolphins acting as heroes, perhaps one of them would've fetched them, then brought back to shore for a simple cracker and pat on the head.THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While the majority of the population may be pretty poor, there are always rich people in any country - they'll be the ones watching TV. --Tango (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, okay. You should probably spend a little less time just assuming things. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. Malcolm XIV (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I just didn't realize that every country on Earth had access to TV. And I got a sense of humor..... Antarctica?... Really?... And how does that work!?

And if Bangladesh had nukes (but they "don't", -thank you, Wiki!) there would have been additional problems, indeed.....And they're so hungry over there, they'd probably try to eat the mushroom cloud./ Zing, Bam! I still got it! HOO-YEA!(Told you I have a sense of humor).--THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Curios man, i really like your sense of humour...Although racist : )