Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 June 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Entertainment desk
< June 7 << May | June | Jul >> June 9 >
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.

June 8[edit]

What fraction of tournament chess games begin with 1. e4?[edit]

And if possible I'd like a complete breakdown of the frequency with which each opening move is used. If the distribution varies depending on the level at which the tournament is played, I'd like to know that too.

Thanks for any advice. —Dominus (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) has some information. —Dominus (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

poolside scenes[edit]

On every episode of The Love Boat, there were poolside scenes. In them, people wore swim attire or warm weather clothes. Some people were also seen in the pool, lying down beside it, or just soaking their feet. Was the pool real? If yes, how deep was it? (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was probably a set, like most of the series; they did film some stuff on the actual boat, but I believe that mostly for the aerial shots and whatnot. I'm not sure the information for how deep the pool on the set was is available anywhere. It probably wasn't very deep, as viewers couldn't see that anyway, but sure, if there's a pool on a TV set, it's generally a "real" pool in the sense that it's got real walls that hold in real water. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The aerial shots were stock footage provided by the cruise line. If the pool shots didn't include any of the actors, then they may have been the same. —Dominus (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack The Lad And Bloody Mary[edit]

After just finishing reading the novel, I was wondering what it meant by Mary giving Jackie the cigarette case. Is this meant to be metaphor that, no matter what, she will always love him and her love will now always be with him or is it her way of agreeing to get back with him? Or does it mean something completely different than what I'm thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiekell (talkcontribs) 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


A boy walking in the woods meets a dog. He reads the dog's tag: "Militär Hund, that means military dog." Belatedly he recognizes to his horror that this must be the notorious "Hund", reputed to be a killer, left behind by the retreating Germans. In the end, of course, Hund only wants friendship.

This is all I remember of a movie that I saw a couple of times in the Seventies. Recognize it? —Tamfang (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't say whether it was originally an English-language film. If not, the Yugoslav film Vuk samotnjak looks like a good bet. A synopsis in German can be found here; a briefer one, which indicates that there was an English dubbed version that may have been titled Lone Wolf—the BFI page isn't too clear—is here (expand the credits to see those for the dubbed version). A YouTube copy of the film's trailer, in the original language, is the top hit in a Google search for the Serbo-Croatian title. Deor (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
My aural memory of the line quoted suggests that it is dubbed. The BFI summary is indeed a good match; and the Youtube clip has a closeup of the MILITÄR HUND tag. Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did it go?[edit]

Okay, I was too busy to check back on here for a week or so, and now there's no trace of my question or any answer there may have been. Isn't there any way to check back on that? Elfred (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Check your own contribs to find the date, then search the archives for that date on that desk. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Here it is; it seems to be unanswered. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Well, thank you very much for the reply here, regardless. Elfred (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What sci-fi mythos had a race of powerful neutral observer aliens?[edit]

In today's daily comic, there was a parody of a concept from sci-fi that I'm sure I've heard before. There's a race of powerful aliens, who are neutral observers, simply chronicling events as historians, and are not allowed to get involved in the affairs of humans. Or something like that. Maybe the example I'm thinking of, a member of this race goes renegade and becomes a super-villain? Or super-hero? Or maybe not. I can't remember. Help me out! It's kind of like Destiny from Sandman, but not that. Alien race, I think. Star Trek? Star Wars? HHGTTG? Superman? I can't find it!

Thanks (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Stargate SG-1 had Ascended beings, who were supposed never to interfere, but somehow always did.
  • Dr Who's Time Lords were "bound by the moral complexity of interfering in the natural flow of history", but somehow always did.
  • Star Trek's Federation people were forbidden by their Prime Directive from interfering with less developed cultures, but somehow always did.
-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
All of which are cack-handed Prometheus retreads. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Uatu the Watcher is the referent here, I think. Algebraist 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. — (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
TO respond to Finlay McWalter's list, the whole point of creating "unbreakable rules" in Sci Fi is, of course, to break them. Consider Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics; as a plot device the entire POINT of it, once it is created, is to test its limits by creating stories that break the Three Laws. The same with the Prime Directive and all of its varients in different universes; the advanced race is supposedly prevent by moral obligation from interfering; but then are faced with a moral dilema which forces them to choose a lesser evil. Its one of the most common sources of dramatic tension in science fiction; most of these stories would be quite boring if everyone followed the rules all the time! 04:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a common concept that expands beyond books/movies and into music, such as Klaatu's "So Said the Lighthouse Keeper" - a song about an interstellar lighthouse keeper that watches all existence. -- kainaw 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The wormhole aliens in ST:DS9 are close to this discription, except in one episode, they destroy an entire fleet of Dominion ships. In the original BSG, the "angels" aren't supposed to interfere but I think that they end up saving Starbuck's or Apollo's life. Also in the original BGS, Count Iblis isn't supposed to interfere without the conscent of mortals (free will issues here). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to say that this convention is more common in books and short stories, but now that I think of it, I can't actually think of one.
I think that Doctor Who matches what you said pretty well, even if it's presented differently than in that comic strip. In Doctor Who the timelords are supposed to be a race of neutral observers that (rarely) interfere with us lesser mortals. All except for The Doctor who is essentially a renegade. Every once and a while they make a half-hearted attempt to reign him in because he's violating all sorts of timelord laws buy constantly saving the Earth from destruction. APL (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That other Time Lord, The Master, is also something of a meddler! (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, the Vorlon from Babylon 5 are observers... yet they interfere like every other observer race. (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! I guess it was the Watchers from Fantastic Four that I was trying to remember. Thanks again! (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)