Entertainment desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 22

Jyada horsepower wells fargo ad

I saw a billboard a while back for Wells Fargo that said "Jyada Horsepower for you vyapaar" Is this some sort of gibberish or is it in Hinglish or something? It was in Fremont, California and there is a huge Desi population. It was for Wells Fargo Business Services Packages.Thisbites (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could they mean the Dodge Viper ? It has horsepower and sounds something like "vyapaar". StuRat (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100522164308AAFRkXm Corvus cornix_talk 22:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Shrugged (film)

So, what happened with the Atlas Shrugged film? I'm not looking for box office numbers or anything like that (though that stuff might be interesting), but rather individual opinions about the film From the most well-educated forum around, I might add. Anyway, a local film club is sponsoring and screening it for a "select audience" (We're members of the regional film society). Both my wife and I have read the book- and the Fountainhead- and "appreciated" them. I am curious how closely the film follows the book, and if it is worth taking time out of a Friday night to go see (for free, I should add). Quinn ^CLOUDY 01:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT the forum to discuss opinions of films. Please re-read the big gray box at the top of the page. --Jayron32 01:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeze, fine. I'll take it to AICN or some such. I see now that this forum is for academic questions only. Thanks, Quinn ^CLOUDY 01:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must have "spaced" the big gray box when I asked this question. Quinn ^CLOUDY 01:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is the right place, just curious how many wikipedians watched this film. --Douploas1254 (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the right place as this is not a forum. We try to find published references for people and, failing that, use a bit of personal knowledge to answer factual questions. Since we only have less than one percent of the total number of Wikipedians who even read this page, we wouldn't even be able to give you a statistically significant guess. Dismas|^(talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its page on Rottentomatoes states that 6% of critics liked it. This is an unusually wretched rating. Peter Travers wrote, "Ayn Rand's monumental 1,168-page, 1957 novel gets the low-budget, no-talent treatment and sits there flapping on screen like a bludgeoned seal." Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's priceless. That's why critics get the big bucks. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it in some perspective, the film The Green Berets, almost universally panned (e.g. for its "memorable closing scene in which the sun sets in the east") and hence not exactly John Wayne's finest hour, rates 22 percent.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the film has potential to be considered for List of films considered the worst. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP, it might be useful to read this lengthy review by Roger Ebert.[2] He goes into some depth about the various issues he has with this film. If you're into trains, it might be interesting just on that basis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Baseball: Who cares what Roger thinks? See [3][4] --Douploas1254 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film is showing pretty much only in "red states", which could be expected to produce an appropriately biased favorable response. Maybe the opinion of conservative-leaning critic Michael Medved would be of more interest to you?[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have shown your own left-liberal bias. The reference desk is not the right place to advocate your political view. And a note, the reviews from "professional" critics are also biased (obviously against free market, for example see the truth about Roger Ebert), but that is not going to have any impact in the film's box office success and its future status as a cult classic. --Douploas1254 (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you yourself are already biased in its favour. Nothing wrong with that, but here isn't the place to give it free publicity under cover of a question ostensibly about "how many Wikipedians watched this film", the answer to which a second's thought would tell you nobody on God's earth could possibly know. So, please, no more of your disingenuousness. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. Again, sorry for asking an inappropriate question...but since there has been some responses, I thought that I should report that we did attend the screening. Personally, I thought the acting was spotty and killed the film's momentum in places, but I do not agree with the extremely negative reviews of the critics. If you have read the book, it was interesting to compare the two, and it held my attention throughout. I should also add that a good number of people in attendance applauded at its conclusion, and seemed to genuinely like the film a lot. From the very small sample of people who I watched it with, I could see how it might end up being, for better or worse, a cult classic. Just not my cup of tea. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 13:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never know what "cult classic" means anymore. Once upon a time, it referred to a movie that was beloved by a small coterie of fans but more-or-less unknown to the rest of humanity. Now, it sometimes means that, but just as often means a movie that vast numbers of people have seen and have generally liked. I cannot imagine how the same expression came to mean 2 such diametrically different things, but that's the goddam media for you. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're off track now, but use of the term "cult classic" is one of my pet peeves right now about Wikipedia's movie articles. It seems to me that whenever there is a movie that has done poorly, it can be depended upon that some editor claims in its Wikipedia article that the movie is a "cult classic". If I had the time, I'd like to write a bot to delete all such references in all Wikipedia articles unless there's a citation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree. Films that don't involve some combination of at least 3, of the following should not be called cult classics: a) drag queens b) midnight showings c) laser light shows d) audience participation e) audience usage of mild and/or heavy hallucinogenic drugs should not be called "cult classics". --Jayron32 19:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's just mediocre Australian journalists using incredibly sloppy and misleading language, but what I said above stands. For example, I heard a journo talking about the early overseas success of The King's Speech before its Australian release, using words like "This film is going to win Oscars, make a lot of money for its makers, and is destined to become a cult classic", which meant it would be a film most people would go and see, talk about at work, buy the CD, watch it on TV, the works. I suppose she meant it's destined to become a "classic", which nobody would dispute - but "a cult classic" ...? This is far from the first time I've heard mainstream films described in this way. So now, "cult" in a cinematic context apparently means "the vast majority of the movie-loving population", while simultaneously also meaning "a tiny proportion of the movie-loving population". How on earth it could possibly mean both things escapes my powers of reasoning, but there you have it. The word "cult" in a general sense, mainly through its application to certain quasi-religious groups, has acquired decidedly negative and even evil connotations, so how it could now mean something positive, popular and wonderful is again one of the mysteries of the age. Journalists are experts at creating such mysteries; usually, even they don't have the key. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just saw the film. If you can get past Ayn Rand's "unions and government bad, corporations good" philosophy, it's actually not a bad movie. I don't know how much it cost to make this film, but as far as I was concerned, the acting isn't bad, the sets aren't bad, the CGI isn't bad, it's a decent movie on its own merits. Corvus cornix_talk 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rand's rule is "collectives bad, talented individuals good"; I don't remember a good word for corporations as such in the book. —Tamfang (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang programs

When is "Dennis the Menace" relaunching it's return? Because if I recall, it said it's gonna re-launch back on June 6 Monday @ 9:00 p.m. that's the day after my birthday. Am I right? I've been waiting for an answer for months since I created my 1st user and I still got no answer or response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPIRfan6587 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence of any series with that title since 1998: [6]. By now, they would need a new "Dennis". There have been a couple movies since then, though. There was the live action movie, "A Dennis the Menace Chrsitmas", in 2007, [7], and the cartoon "Dennis the Menace in Cruise Control", in 2002 [8]. Do you mean a live action or cartoon version ? Which TV network are you talking about ? Where did you get your info that it was returning ? StuRat (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume, by the title, that he is refering to the Boomerang (TV channel) network, which shows old cartoons in the U.S. Since it is designed to show old cartoons, the OP is probably curious as to when the network is going to broadcast old Dennis the Menace cartoons again; rather than a new series. --Jayron32 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good catch. I thought he was using "boomerang" just to mean that it was coming back around again. (Wouldn't you think that would be the name of an Australian network ?) It looks like they showed the 1986 Dennis the Menace cartoon both in 2007 and 2010: Dennis_the_Menace_(1986_TV_series)#USA. StuRat (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]