Entertainment desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

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 2[edit]

Real life based fiction vs. non-real life based fiction?[edit]

Is there an official term for the difference between fiction that is supposedly based on the real-world Earth (as in Star Trek or Harry Potter) and fiction that is based on an entirely imaginary universe (as in Star Wars or Earthsea)? JIP | Talk 19:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setting (fiction), Fictional universe vs ??? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For fantasy, there's the distinction of high fantasy ("set in invented or parallel worlds") and low fantasy ("characterised by being set in the real world, with the inclusion of magical elements"), although the distinction is not quite an either/or case based on whether Earth is mentioned. For example, our article classifies Harry Potter as "high fantasy", because although it is ostensibly set in the real world, it takes place primarily in an invented "world-within-a-world". I don't think there's a corresponding distinction between "high scifi" versus "low scifi". One of the issues is that space is vast, and items which don't mention earth can be set "Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away" - so they're the real universe, only a distant corner of it. To some extent, the difference is subsumed by the hard science fiction/science fantasy continuum, where the important distinction is not whether the fiction is ostensibly set in this universe or another universe, but whether the laws of nature are consistent with (the current understanding of) this universe, or if the author said "let's ignore the laws of physics if it makes a better story". -- 174.21.244.142 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of science fiction genres isn't very useful either; there doesn't seem to be a specific distinction in terminology. The list does mention mundane science fiction as earth-based, but it's not a term in common use. Certain genres typically have an earth-based setting, such as apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, but there is no category that includes them all. Google suggests that the term "earth based" is often used for material set on earth, but it's not in any lists of genres or sf terminology I can see (which would be as close as you get to being "official"). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be looking for the term "hard science fiction" for sci/fi that's set in the 'real universe' with adherence to real physical laws (IE no lightspeed travel, force shields, reactionless thrust, ect). As opposed to "space Opera" "space fantasy" or "soft sci/fi" which treats the fundamental laws of nature more as suggestions and gives us all those neat toys like antigravity, visible blaster bolts that don't move at lightspeed and cause recoil, warp drives, hyperspace, kinetic barrier shields and cute blue girls. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the distinction I'm asking about is specifically whether a the universe is based on a specific representation of the real-world Earth or completely imaginary. Star Trek and Star Wars both have lightspeed travel, laser weapons that cause bright lights, and cute strangely-coloured girls. However, Star Trek is specifically stated to be based on Earth, while Star Wars makes no mention of Earth whatsoever. JIP | Talk 19:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which of the two would the Bartimaeus trilogy count? How about the Wizard of Oz, which opens in what seems quite like the real life Kansas. – b_jonas 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket World Cup Ratings[edit]

Does anyone know how many people watched part of the cricket world cup yesterday? Eiad77 (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, and nobody ever will.

Sorry for the seemingly flippant response, but am always very sceptical of TV audience claims for events like this. There is no globally standard way of collecting and reporting such data. If someone does discover a claim somewhere, I will be very interested to see how well it's sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with that, but The Hamilton Spectator of Hamilton, Ontario says "Some estimates suggest one-sixth of humanity — or more than one billion people — watched the blockbuster World Cup semifinal of India vs. Pakistan on Wednesday.[1]". Alansplodge (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, better than nothing. Eiad77 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some figures in the 2011 Cricket World Cup Final article - "67.6 million viewers with cable and satellite connections", plus possibly another billion people on regular non-cable TV, assuming everyone who could watch on TV was actually watching. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]