Entertainment desk
< August 8	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 10 >

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.

August 9[edit]

Help me find this film: Upcoming film about an abandoned Chicago[edit]

I saw a trailer showing an abandoned Chicago in the minutes before The Dark Knight Rises.

A group of young people walk around the city (with bows-and-arrows, I think?), not many people around, no running vehicles (individual or mass-transit), and many places are overgrown with vegetation, even streets. I saw Wrigley Field looking decrepit as it was also abandoned.

However, I never got the title. Besides that, I know it's coming out either later this year, or sometime in 2013, thereabouts.

Please help me find more info about this upcoming film. Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that ad; it's been running a lot on NBC's Olympics coverage, since it's for an upcoming NBC series (not a film): Revolution (TV series). I particularly like the overgrown Wrigley Field. Deor (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. What a disturbing premise! Some people rely on electronics to live. Hopefully this kind of situation would never happen. I hate to live a day without electronics, to say nothing of the rest of my life! --70.179.170.114 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out the book Dies the Fire, which this series's premise comes from. In fact, that book is the first of several more in the same universe. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian overtones in DC comic books[edit]

I have been looking into DC's power hierarchy—it is very, very fragmented—, particularly where it deals with things like the Anti-Life Equation, the Spectre, the Lantern Corps, and the Source. Whereas Marvel's supreme being, TOAA, is non-sectarian, clearly define, and omnipotent, the supreme being of the DC universe is not so much any of those. They have some really off-the-beaten-path narratives regarding the Monitors and Superman, the Endless, Lucifer Morningstar, and the Green Lantern Corp. Are these developments really just author-specific or are they really repeated throughout the comics? --Melab±1 ☎ 15:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because of the author rotation and because Christianity is the most common religion in America, there could be no real difference between "author-specific" and "really repeated." Though shuffled off to the Vertigo line, Alan Moore's run on Swamp Thing pretty clearly established "there is a God (capital G) in the DC universe," though it didn't establish which religion (if any) was correct. Sandman and Hellblazer have both firmly established that hell exists, but that people don't get sent there because of their particular religion (IIRC, the Devil was rather confused/amused that the Cainites, who believed that he created and that Cain was freeing them by creating sin, did not go to hell). Hellblazer has established that Jesus does have some connection with God that Lucifer is jealous of, but that neither the Father nor the Son is completely all powerful (then again, those parts could be read as are either Lucifer's questionable accounts or Constantine's biased pride). Kid Eternity kind of outright said "yeah, something Judeo-Christian-ish is probably the truth of the DC universe," but Grant Morrison opened another can of worms (he does that a lot) and said "nope, Chaos Demons tricking the guy into thinking he went to heaven."

If I had to guess, the DC cosmology is almost Advaita Hinduism or Mahayana Buddhism draped with Abrahamic mythology: where a soul goes is based on a combination of personal enlightenment, faith, and actions, but the God of Abraham, not Brahman or the Cosmic Buddha, is in charge and what the universe will ultimately return to.

Also, depending on what point of Ghost Rider you're reading, Christianity may be correct, or the obvious-Jesus-is-obvious that tried to help the Ghost Rider was really the Devil in disguise. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is much less pronounced in Marvel Comics. The only thing that ties TOAA to a monotheistic god is being referred to as "the almighty" by the Living Tribunal. In the DC universe the Source's omnipotence is dubious (look up anything related to the Primal Monitor, which doesn't appear to be all powerful itself). There is one established Hell in DC's comics. There are multiple hells in Marvel and they are simply other dimensions/pocket universe with Earth-616, not anything really divine or biblical in nature. Mephisto only plays off the image of the devil. Anyway, having Superman and Lex Luthor be the characters that get the closest to experiencing the top of the food chain is strange. --Melab±1 ☎ 16:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Certain Types of Television Humor[edit]

Resolved

Hi all,

I am trying to understand the humor present in a number of North American television shows. Two I can name off the top of my head are Arrested Development and The Office. I have met or seen quite a number of people, some of whom I consider quite smart, who really enjoy these shows and find them very entertaining and funny. One individual at described Arrested Development as a "stupid show for smart people" or something perplexing along these lines.

I personally have a hard time categorizing them as humourous, or understanding why or how they're supposed to be funny. There are many comedy shows that I don't find funny, largely animated adult comedy, where I can still understand how it was supposed to be funny. But for these shows, I am at something of a loss. Since it will likely be asked, I find many British comedies funny. Thanks, Sazea (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, do you find the British version of "The Office" funnier than you find the US version? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoy this humorless description of tv humor... Arrested Development used a wide variety of humor techniques including: non sequiturs, lots of irony, physical humor, puns, topical cultural commentary, cultural references and frequent self-referential inside jokes. The latter three may have been part of why you struggled to find it funny as these jokes required specific outside knowledge. It also used significant amounts foreshadowing as well as red herrings which made it enjoyable for some people to rewatch. The British and American Office where very similar during their first season (The US version remade some of the British episodes nearly word for word) and was based mainly around observational humor focusing on the contemporary workplace. In addition there were two buffoon characters, the manager and his sycophantic assistant, whose humor was derived mainly from their misunderstanding of social ques and inappropriate behavior in comparison to the rest of the cast who served as straight men. Later seasons of the American version (which has many many more episodes) became more of a soap opera, where the character's shifting interpersonal relationships were the focus. It also became less observational, instead using non sequiturs and strange situations to derive humor. --Daniel 21:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the theories of humor is that humor comes from incongruity - the discrepancy between what a person expects to happen and what actually happens. So in your shows, you have people who reasonably should act in a rational and normal way, but instead act in a way that a "quite smart" person might consider strange. This incongruity is then perceived as humor. Other theories of humor pose that humor comes from relief in tension (in both shows characters get into situations which would be stressful for most people, but then are resolved in absurd ways), or from the safe observation of the misfortunes of others (which both shows have in excess). - That explains why others might find the shows humorous, but doesn't really go into why you might not find the same things funny. It's probably a little risky to speculate, but several possibilities are that the characters' behavior isn't unexpected for you (if you have zero expectation that Dwight/GOB would be anything but stupid, their antics won't be incongruous), or you don't invest very much in the story (so you never experience the tension that's released with the humor), or that you empathize closely with the characters (so their antics are more stressful than funny). To some extent, in order to find such shows funny you need to relate to the characters enough so that you wince a little when they do stupid things, but not so much that it becomes uncomfortable. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure out why something is funny to someone and not to someone else, is like trying to figure out why some folks like liver and some don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can yo tell us where you're from and your native language, Sazea? μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon some reflection, research, and of course from everyone's input, I'm fairly certain that I've figured out the issue. The irrational behaviors of several of the characters such as Dwight and Gob can have a far more different meaning when taken out of context. Out of context, I saw them less as targets of humour and more potentially mentally ill. Medeis, not to be disrespectful, but I would like to keep that information private if possible.

Anyways, thanks for everything, I probably would have puzzled over it and given up on it repeatedly otherwise. Sazea (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked not out of personal interest, but because irony ("Oh, he'll just love that"--meaning he will absolutely hate it) is a big part of American TV culture (Frasier, Seinfeld) which doesn't translate well. I had Latin American friends who were absolutely baffled by it, taking it as meant seriously, and causing some real misunderstandings on occasion. I understand Seinfeld bombed in Germany. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone in thinking these shows aren't funny. I thought some of Arrested Development was funny, but almost nothing on The Office seems funny to me. There's something they rely on that I call "incompetence humor", which I don't find funny at all. They just show somebody (like Steve Carell's character) doing his job poorly, and this is supposed to make us laugh. Saturday Night Live does entirely too much of this too, IMHO. For example, the recurring sketch of two singers who come in unprepared and make their song up as they go along. Perhaps slightly funny the first time, but definitely not when they repeated it again and again. And I very much like many other sitcoms, like Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men and Two Broke Girls. StuRat (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All three of which are terrible and not funny at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find them funny eithr, but apparently the Nielsen families do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have comedy in Germany?Tom Haythornthwaite 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Since The World's Funniest Joke was unleashed on them during WW2, they have taken their comedy very seriously. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Gary Wilhelm[edit]

I am trying to find ANYTHING on a man that co-wrote the song (track 9) "Sunny Day" with Jack Conrad on The Dillards, "Roots And Branches" LP in '72 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_and_Branches I have spent 2 days trying every angle and association with not scrap of info other than this credit. Definitely a challenge. Thank you so much for your consideration Mossinterest (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]