Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of entertainment.

Welcome to the entertainment reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type ~~~~ (i.e. four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual

November 23[edit]

First full-length autostereoscopic movie in full color[edit]

What was the first full-length autostereoscopic movie in full color? VRtrooper (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by full-length. But originally, feature films were about 50-55 minutes (back in the silent era), so we'll use this definition. With this in mind, the first autostereoscopic feature film in "full color" would be the 1952 Soviet film Mayskaya Noch. At first, I thought it was Robinzon Kruzo, but this article (in russian language) flat out states that it's a myth about the film being in color and that the original negative is in black and white (Machine 22-12 isn't in color either): Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
According to IMDb (not an official reliable source, true), Robinzon Kruzo (1947) was shot in Sovcolor - we don't have an article on this format, but see Agfacolor. This article from the BFI, linked from our article on the film, also states that it was in colour. Tevildo (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The link I posted above will explain everything. The original negative wasn't even in color! Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my anti-virus software blocks Does it satisfy our criteria for reliable sources? Is there an English translation of the article available anywhere? If so, I'm sure the information could usefully be added to the article, but, at the moment, the BFI source is the best we have. Tevildo (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The link is to an article from a leading Russian publication, but there is no English translation available. But I could translate it in English for you, if you want. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We'll need evidence that the magazine is in fact a "leading Russian publication". It claims to be one, but that isn't proof. WP:RSN might be the best place to discuss this. Tevildo (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DC Comics in a Marvel Universe[edit]

This is probably going to sound a bit weird, but I've been wondering this for a few weeks now:

Do Batman comics exist within the Marvel universe?

Similarly, are Oliver Queen and Felicity Smoak able to go out and see the latest Avengers movie? Certain characters do mention comic books at times, so I'm curious as to whether there's an official answer as to whether the franchises contain each other as fiction. I'm guessing the answer is probably "it's not mentioned", but you never know.

(This question comes out of Christopher L. Bennett's author notes for one of his Star Trek novels, wherein he has a 20th century character and needs to know what sort of TV they may have watched in a world where, for obvious reasons, the Star Trek franchise never existed.) -mattbuck (Talk) 13:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there was DC vs. Marvel and JLA/Avengers. See also Intercompany crossover. --Viennese Waltz 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see what you're getting at now - not so much crossovers like those I mention above, but instances where the characters of one universe experience the other universe as fiction. As you were, then. --Viennese Waltz 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
These type of things are typically done as throwaway gags by the artists and writers rather than being company directives or part of canon. Perhaps even odder, Marvel comics are part of the Marvel Universe, to the point where Captain America even drew his own adventures for a while. Probably long since retconned, but it made for weird reading for sure. If you Google clark kent in marvel you'll see some articles and lists that cover instances of unofficial crossovers; it would not surprise me at all if some of them included times a Marvel character watched a Superman movie or similar, though I don't know of any specific instances to point you to. (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, The Marvel Action Hour was lame in comic world, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, November 27, 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, but you may also be interested in our general list on the subject list of fictional books - Comic books appearing in comic books are most likely fictional books, though there may be exceptions. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Not DC or Marvel, but on a hunch I Googled "Bash Street Kids reading The Beano" and came up with this.--Shantavira|feed me 19:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The general case for this problem is described at TV Tropes as genre blindness - where people in a zombie movie have never seen a zombie movie. Superhero fiction is just as guilty of it - whenever someone is irradiated or whatever and learns they're super-strong, no-one ever says "wow, he's a super hero now". In practice, almost all fictional characters live in a stark universe where there is no (modern) fiction at all - fictions within fiction are rare, and are almost always belie a major plot point, winking at the audience. Or the piece is a oh-so-postmodern lampshading of the genre (Scream, Buffy). (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Marvel characters sometimes make jokes about Clark Kent; for example: after the Beta Ray Bill story, in which Thor lost the ability to become Donald Blake, he approached Nick Fury (iirc) for help in fitting in on Earth; among other things Fury gave him a pair of glasses, saying, "They always worked for that other guy." (This is from my memory, about which see above.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hatufim actors in Homeland[edit]

in "All About Allison", the latest episode of Homeland, actress Hadar Ratzon Rotem made a guest appearance as Mossad official Tova. She previously appeared in Hatufim, the Israeli show which is (roughly) the basis of Homeland. I know the two programmes have some behind-the-scenes personnel in common (in particular Gideon Raff), but are there other actors who have appeared in both? -- Finlay McWalterTalk 22:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yousef Sweid was in both, according to IMDb (in the pilot episode of Homeland, and as Abdallah in Hatufim). IMDb has a search function that shows "Common Cast/Crew Between Two Titles" and "Two People Working Together". There are 9 people with IMDb pages who have worked on both shows but Sweid is the only actor currently listed. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 24[edit]

Question about Sense8[edit]

1. When will season 2 of sense8 start? 2. Why does imdb say Sense8 season 2 will be in 2017 when this article says next June: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We aren't in a position to say why IMDB says something, but presumably someone put that information on IMDB because they had reason to think it was true – like Wikipedia, the information on IMDB is largely if not entirely entered by volunteer users.
The article you link is dated today 25 November 2015, so maybe no-one has got round to updating IMDB with this very recent information yet: there would seem to be no reason why you yourself could not do so. {The poster formerly known as (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

November 25[edit]

Identifying a song?[edit]

Reggae-ish song in A flat. Chorus begins with "All right." Heard it many times. What song is it? Theskinnytypist (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Three Little Birds? Almost every reggae-ish song has "all right" or "alright" in it, but that's a very popular one. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was "Alright alright alright" by Mungo Jerry. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

spin-off from Spin-off[edit]

how much common is spin-off from spin-off|?-- (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends a bit on how you want to categorize things. Have a look at List_of_television_spin-offs. For example Animaniacs had the spin off Pinky and the Brain. Is Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain a spin-off of Pinky and the Brain, making it a spin-off of a spin-off, or is it just a different spin-off of Animaniacs? I'm sure both answers can be defended. Some of the spin-offs of Happy Days could also be considered second- or third-level spin-offs. You'll probably also like the coverage at TVtropes [1]. Not the same thing, but this question also reminded me of The_Tommy_Westphall_Universe_Hypothesis ([2], [3]), wherein many many TV shows are linked by in-universe character crossovers, putting everything taking place in shows like X-files and Law & Order inside one autistic kid's dream. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Also Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain is a spin-off of Tiny Toon Adventures, which is itself a spin-off of Looney tunes. So that show is a second order spin-off in two different ways. If you go into the source code for our article searching for '**' will show you the second order spinoffs, and '***' the third orders, etc. Using that method, I see that Bret_Michaels:_Life_as_I_Know_It can be considered a ninth-level spin-off of The Surreal Life, but for me personally, the notion of spin-off is very different in reality TV compared to regular shows with writers. Sabrina's Secret Life is a 6th level spin-off of The Archie Comedy Hour, making it one of the highest level "real" shows I can see. Anyway, interesting stuff, maybe someone could start a List of second-order television spin-offs by scraping the general list. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I seem to remember that All in the Family had at least one grandchild. Did Rhoda (spun from Mary Tyler Moore) have a spinoff? —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, I don't think there were any spin-offs from Spin City. Spin City itself could have been considered a spin-off, if Michael J. Fox's character had retained the name Alex P. Keaton, from Family Ties. But, despite the similarity in the characters, they changed the name. StuRat (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry and Tom and Jerry[edit]

The characters Tom and Jerry were named, as we read in the article, in the following way: "Hanna and Barbera held an intra-studio contest to give the pair a new name by drawing suggested names out of a hat; animator John Carr won $50 with his suggestion of Tom and Jerry."; while Joseph Barbera, according to Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren), "began his career as an animator and storyman on this series. In 1940, Barbera co-created with William Hanna another duo of cartoon characters using the same names: a cat and mouse named Tom and Jerry." So... one of the two creators of this series started his career with a working on series of the same name, and that's a sheer coincidence? Has John Carr ever been asked for the reasons motivating his suggestion - maybe the older series played a role? --KnightMove (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There were also "Tom and Jerry" cartoons in 1931-1932, but not about a cat and a mouse. They were quite risque since they were before the film decency code. Edison (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Those are the same (old) Tom and Jerry from the question. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, November 25, 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. It is odd that someone could create a 1940 cartoon series with the same name as a copyrighted 1932 cartoon series. Did they buy rights to the name? Edison (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
That would be a trademark issue, not copyright. Applying today's law to yesteryear (doesn't always work) and presuming the Van Beuren bothered to register "Tom and Jerry", they'd have to specify a purpose. Perhaps "cartoon film" was too broad, and it only extended to "Mutt and Jeff-style cartoon films". Perhaps the trademark did cover all cartoons, but Van Beuren figured he couldn't prove damages, or only enough to not cover legal costs. Remember, there was no home video nor Teletoon Retro for an infringement to eat into yet. Old films were generally just replaced by new films, inherently making the new studios richer than the old ones, and harder to fight in court. Ub Iwerks is sort of to trademarks as Nikolai Tesla was to patents.
Or perhaps Joseph Barbera (or one of his "associates") simply threatened to bury Van Beuren (one way or another) if he didn't play ball. That's how a lot of the entertainment industry has always worked (allegedly). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, November 25, 2015 (UTC)
Here's a bit about the various problems in protecting a film title with American trademark or copyright law. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, November 25, 2015 (UTC)
The initial version of the character Foxy (Merrie Melodies) was almost a direct ripoff of Mickey Mouse as he looked at the time. Copyright restrictions could be a bit blurry in those days. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
For good classic thievery, check out The Karnival Kid, then watch Circus (in that article's Reference section). Or this totally generic mouse. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, November 26, 2015 (UTC)
Simon and Garfunkel also went by the name "Tom and Jerry" early on. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


I read an article yesterday that apparently, Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a disorder. Are there any references here to assert this conclusion. I must say, I was alarmed and disturbed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't whether any sexual attraction qualifies as a "disorder", no matter how bizarre, like beastiality, just a matter of opinion ? I'm sure we can find authoritative opinions from reputed organizations, but that's still just opinion. (In an attempt at a neutral, objective standard, you could call any sexual attraction that can't lead to reproduction a "disorder", but then homosexuality, attraction to post-menopausal women, etc., would be so classified, and attraction to teens below the age of consent would not be. Also, non-reproductive sex seems to serve a social purpose, notably in bonobos.) StuRat (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This is really not an entertainment question, but ho hum...
For the purposes of this post I use the term "paedophile" to be one who is attracted to children, and "paedophiliac" as one who acts on that attraction.
To answer your question, I think it's both really. It's certainly not what society considers to be acceptable behaviour. Although there's some debate over it, it is generally considered that you cannot change your sexual orientation. By the same manner, you can't change whether you're a paedophile (although one can obviously choose whether to be a paedophiliac). I don't think anyone can change what arouses us, and let's face it, we all have things we'd rather not be aroused by. Quite what causes it I don't know, but I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to say.
Again, I would like to state that there is a difference between feeling an attraction to something and actually acting on those desires. I do know people who are or have been attracted to children in the past, and if such things weren't somewhere in our psyche there'd be no need for all the "slutty schoolgirl" porn. Those who abuse children rightly deserve our condemnation; but they, and those who merely feel the attraction, also deserve our help. It must be hell to feel those things, and very isolating, because most other people won't see any difference between the desire and the act. Admitting you feel such things is a one way ticket to social isolation, and that discourages people actually getting counselling for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I think of "deviant" behaviors as like being an alcoholic: There's no cure. The only "treatment" is abstinence. That's why registered sex offenders are required to stay away from children, just like alcoholics have to stay away from booze. The difference is that the bottle is just an object, while a child is a human and has to be protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Alcoholics manage to do quite a bit of damage, such as wife beating and driving drunk and killing people. StuRat (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Some alcoholics. And some non-alcoholics. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
No doubt. In fact, StuRat's observation points to a major factor in the (failed) attempt at Prohibition in America. But it's the booze that they're addicted to, and the other stuff are consequences of that addiction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Another attempt to objectively classify paraphilias as a "disorder" (or not) might be to ask the individual if their paraphilia causes a major disruption in their life. However, note that the answer is likely to be highly culturally dependent, as men who had sex with young boys in ancient Greece would answer no, because this was culturally accepted there. So then, what is classified as a "disorder" in our society would be normal for them. See cultural relativism. StuRat (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The idea that pedophilia (or bestiality, or whatever) is a sexual orientation is one frequently trumpeted by certain homophobic factions who want to paint same-sex relationships as being as horrible/unnatural/ungodly/etc. as baby-raping and animal abuse. It's a form of slippery slope edging into association fallacy where it is hoped that readers will vote against same-sex marriage rights due to fear that this will eventually lead to people marrying their cat or something. As others have mentioned, the very term "orientation" can be problematic. Is being attracted to Asian females an orientation distinct from attraction to females in general? I don't think most people would use the term that way, but YMMV. (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It's true that they do say such things, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're entirely wrong. There's no right way to describe such things, and unfortunately people have a tendency to focus on the words you use rather than what you mean by it. Sexual desires are, for most people, innate. They don't choose what attracts them any more than you do. Perhaps they find it's asian women that they like, perhaps it's people being hit with custard pies. Some things they might be happy about, some they might not. I think it's best not to get too bogged down in the terminology, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that most paedophiles probably wish they weren't attracted to children. Similarly, many gay people may wish they didn't find their own gender arousing - life would generally be easier for most people if they were straight. However, that is not to say non-heteronormativity is the same as paedophilia or beastiality. There's a difference between sex between consenting adults and sex between an adult and someone who is incapable of consenting. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that in theory, it's just that nobody referred to bestiality as an "orientation" before the same-sex marriage issue came to the fore. It's not being referred to as such due to difficulties with nomenclature, it's a smear tactic, pure and simple. (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

November 26[edit]

Titanic (1996 miniseries) - Questionable scene[edit]

In the 1996 miniseriesTitanic, why is there a brutal sexual assault scene?

Why does Simon Doonan rape Jamie Perse's girlfriend Aase Ludvigsen?

Rape is when you force someone to have sex with you against their will and sex is commonly/generally associated with love, not with hate.

If Doonan does not like Aase, why does he have sex with her?

Why does he not slap, punch, kick or beat her up?

When Doonan walks into her shower, he says that he's gonna beat her up, not rape her.

When a woman finds her, she says that she's been beaten, not raped.

Jamie tells the woman that he would never hurt her and tells a ship crew member that she's been hurt.

That is morally brutal and morally violet.

In common/general, violence dwells on pain or injury.

Not on sex.

And violence is commonly/generally associated with hate, not with love.

Also, why is the miniseries rated 12?

Brutal sexual violence is associated with rated 15 and 18 films, not with rated U, PG and 12 films.

That moral violence was not featured in other Titanic films, especially animated ones.

That scene was disturbing and hard to watch. (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The motivations for rape have been the subject of much thought. There's some material here and here and here. You asked a very similar question about rape a little while ago; a lot of the replies to that question also apply to this current one. (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And that sort of spacing is better for poetry than prose. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, November 27, 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why the OP, who found the thing "morally violent, disturbing and hard to watch", persisted regardless, and then came here to pass their judgment. As for "Why does he not slap, punch, kick or beat her up?", is he suggesting that that form of violence would have been perfectly fine? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Perfectly fine, from a character development point of view, if the viewer presumes rape is love and thinks the rapist doesn't like her. Moot point, anyway, since the article notes she was brutally raped and beaten. The OP should already know this. Here's some tranquil music. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, November 27, 2015 (UTC)

November 27[edit]

What was the first mainstream example of autostereoscopy (glasses-free 3D) being used in entertainment?[edit]

What was the first mainstream example of autostereoscopy (glasses-free 3D) being used in entertainment? Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As usual, definitions matter. It depends on how you mean mainstream: if you mean readily-available and affordable consumer products, the Nintendo 3DS was released in 2011. There were TVs launched before that, but the cost was very high ($20,000+). There are certainly many examples before these products, but nothing mainstream and affordable. Various technologies to allow this have been around for over 100 years. See Autostereoscopy. Mingmingla (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I see. I just read an article about autostereoscopic cinema. According to the article, a glasses-free 3D cinema opened in Moscow in February 1941, then closed four months later due to WWII. Then: "On 20th February 1947 glasses-free 3D cinema reopened in Moscow with Ivanov et al. replacing the radial barrier with a radial lenticular optical arrangement. This paved the way for glasses-free cinemas in other Russian cities including Leningrad, Kiev and Odessa and enabled audiences to enjoy 3D films such as Robinson Crusoe, Machine 22-12, Crystals, May Night, Aleko, A Precious Gift, and the like.". The article can be found here:

Would this example of autostereoscopy be considered mainstream? Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't mainstream anywhere outside of Russia, and it wasn't in wide release even in Russia despite spreading to a few major cities. I'd be inclined to say no, but I would certainly agree that it wasn't a one-off either. Mingmingla (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

November 28[edit]

Adult voices on Charlie Brown Peanuts TV shows[edit]

Whenever an adult character speaks on any of the animated Charlie Brown Peanuts TV shows, their words are merely a garbled indecipherable "wah wah wah wah" or such. Has Charles M. Schultz ever explained what his reasoning was behind this? Or is there just speculation about it? Also, were any adults ever shown in the cartoons? Or were they always off screen? I believe, the latter. Did Schultz ever explain that, also? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:6CDA:3818:9566:48D4 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

“I usually say that they [adults] do not appear because the daily strip is only an inch and a half high, and they wouldn’t have room to stand up. Actually, they have been left out because they would intrude in a world where they could only be uncomfortable. Adults are not needed in the Peanuts strip. In earlier days I experimented with off-stage voices, but soon abandoned this as it was not only impractical but actually clumsy. Instead, I have developed a cast of off-stage adults who are talked about but never seen or heard.” – Charles M. Schulz, 1975 [4] --Viennese Waltz 07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. But, huh? Instead, I have developed a cast of off-stage adults who are talked about but never seen or heard. I distinctly remember adult character voices being the garbled "wah wah wah" sounds. No? 2602:252:D13:6D70:B1E6:724E:F659:80A9 (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The quote is obviously about the comic strip. When carried over to the screen, the "wah wah wah" sound is used. I think it was created with a muffled trumpet or something like that. However, in some later TV shows, there are actually adults seen and heard, like the man at the Daisy Hill, where Charlie Brown bought Snoopy. In some very early comic strips too, there are adults seen, but only like the legs of them and they do not talk. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"wah wah wah" would fall under "not heard". We can't hear what they say. We can only hear what the children tell us they hear, and only after the children have filtered and interpreted it for us. We don't hear anything the children don't understand. We don't hear anything the children don't care about. We don't hear adult concerns, adult reasons, or adult explanations for anything. Adults are incidental aliens that occasionally intrude into their world.
We are forced to interpret the world through the children's eyes&ears. Alsee (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Alsee - Excellent points. We never "hear" what the adults say. But, rather, what the kids say that the adults say. (Hearsay?) So, yes, everything is filtered through the perspective of the kids. Intentionally so, of course. 2602:252:D13:6D70:A9B5:C9D6:AC6B:B57D (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
And considering how obedient kids are (not!), the muffled trombone could be said to represent how the kids actually hear those adults! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"The Art and Making of Peanuts Animation" by Charles Solomon, p.53, quotes Lee Mendelson as saying "As there were no adults in the strip, Sparky [=Schulz] said 'How are you going to handle the teacher?' I asked Vince Guaraldi if there were some instrument that could sound like talking; he got the trombone out, which worked very effectively." -- BenRG (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Italian incest farce[edit]

(I suspect I may have asked this before, years ago, but got no answer.)

Looking for the title of an Italian (or just possibly French) movie that I saw probably thirty years ago. A wealthy young landowner (I'll arbitrarily call him Pietro for convenience) marries the daughter (whom I'll call Anna) of his father's favorite servant. On the day of the wedding, but too late to stop it, a priest(?) shows up and tells them, "You must not consummate the marriage!" Pietro's nominal father had been castrated by a lion in Africa, so he secretly deputized his servant to sire Pietro, in darkness; thus Pietro is Anna's half-brother. Pietro's mother knew the truth when, in daylight, she saw scratches on the servant's face that she had made in her passion.

The new couple announce that they are remaining chaste for spiritual reasons; but their frustration mounts. Eventually they agree to give in to lust and then take poison. In the nick of time, another priest appears, to warn them that (as he has learned from a deathbed confession) they are half-siblings: Anna was conceived in adultery with Pietro's (nominal) father. Pietro, absorbing this news, absent-mindedly drinks the "poisoned" wine; when Anna is horrified, he says, "This? A harmless aphrodisiac."

I remember no more. —Tamfang (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Incest in film has 259 pages. The closest to your description I find is Till Marriage Do Us Part (IMDB plot summary here), but it doesn't quite match. Accidental incest does not have an "In popular culture" section. -- ToE 22:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
We do have Incest in popular culture, though I don't see anything promising there either. -- ToE 00:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The American comedy My Chauffeur also has two twists which first suggest then resolve a possible brother-sister romance, but both revelations deal with the paternity of the woman. -- ToE 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Arenas in Kazan[edit]

Are Trudovye Rezervy Stadium and Raketa Stadium different names for the same arena or are they different arenas? They are both used for bandy in Kazan, Russia, as it seems. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Football at the 2013 Summer Universiade – Men's tournament lists them separately, as does this Swedish news article. Tevildo (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This Russian Wikipedia article on the 2011 bandy world championships says (if Google Translate has it right) that the tournament was held at both of these stadiums, and gives details of which games were played at each one. Apparently Trudovye Rezervy (Labor Reserves) Stadium is the smaller one, with only 5,000 seats. Combined with the Swedish article, I think that's sufficient evidence to close the suggestion that they are the same place. I'll do so. -- (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

November 29[edit]