From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Entertainment desk
< October 1	<< Sep | October | Nov >>	October 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.

Contents 1 October 2 1.1 EAW Texteditor 1.2 The Academy Awards 1.3 The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia song 1.4 The Song of the South Disney film 1.5 How come the tv series An American Family has never been on DVD 1.6 Giant pictures drawn on ground 1.7 Motion Picture Association of America film rating system

[edit] October 2

[edit] EAW Texteditor

An editor for "MasterTextFile_ENGLISH.DAT" in the Star Wars Empire at War. Something that lets me patch together multiple mods, for optimization of gameplay, or that lets me edit the text similar to some standard thing for editing text. Where is it, please? 67.42.181.151 01:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried a Hex editor? --Canley 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Notepad. Wordpad. MSWord. Anything that can read a .txt file. The master text file for EaW strings is exactly the same as a txt file but with the .dat extension for some reason. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Academy Awards

I have heard that this was/is a tradition at the Academy Awards ceremonies, but am unsure if it is true. Does anyone know for sure, and can anyone provide some source or cite? The tradition is that the Best Actor (for example) of 2000 will present the Oscar to the Best Actor for the following year in 2001. Or ... the Best Director for last year will present the Best Director Award for the following year. Etc. Sort of like when the outgoing Miss America hands over her crown to the newly named Miss America. Is there any truth to this so-called tradition at all? Also, if true, what happens when a person wins a consecutive award? For example, does the Best Actor of 1993 (Tom Hanks) present the Best Actor Award of 1994 (which also goes to Tom Hanks)? What happens in such an instance? Presumably, no one knows the winner until the envelope is actually opened (including the presenter or Tom Hanks, in that example). Has any presenter ever presented an award to themselves? Or do they (the producers, etc.) specifically insure that a nominee in a category would not ever serve as a presenter in that specific category? (The latter would fly in the face of that "tradition", if true.) Any thoughts? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

My immediate response is that where last year's winner is also a nominee this year, the organisers would not contemplate the idiocy of him/her handing the statuette to him/herself, so they'd arrange for a non-nominee to be the presenter to prevent the possibility of this occurring. In the general case, whether last year's winner always hands the statuette to this year's winner, I don't know. I seem to recall the previous year's Best Actress handing over the current year's Best Actor award, and vice-versa. What happens with sexually undifferentiated categories (that's all the others except Best Supporting Actor/Actress), I again don't know. -- JackofOz 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I recall hearing of this tradition, with sex crossover as Jack describes it, specifically in connection with Best Supporting Actor/Actress categories. Perhaps Best Actor/Actress do it as well. Not with other categories. Sorry, no source to cite. --Anon, 13:22 UTC, October 2, 2007.

Relatedly, in The Masters golf tournament, the previous winner gives the new winner his green jacket. Can't remember what happened when Tiger Woods retained the title. jnestorius^(talk) 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The best actor gives the Oscar to the next years best ACTRESS. And the best actress gives it to the next years best ACTOR-i.e. -Halle Berry to Adrian Brody. Best Director is not given by previous director. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.220.2.13 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia song

I read the Wiki article, but need more info. Thanks. Can anyone explain the "plot" in the lyrics of that classic song The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia ...? I don't quite get it. And what exactly is the title in reference to? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

OK, it's Original Research time. It might help to have a copy of the lyrics to follow along with...

Some guy was on his way home from Candletop (a fictional place as best I can tell), and decided to stop in at a bar and have a drink before going home. His friend (Andy Wolo) said "hey, sit down, got some bad news for you." Andy told the guy that his wife had been sleeping around with Seth Amos. The guy got pretty angry, and Andy, good friend that he is, said "well hey, I've been with her too." Now Andy might have been stupid and/or drunk, but he realized that maybe he shoulda just kept his fool mouth shut. He got scared that the unnamed guy might be a little peeved at all these revelations. He walked home (he lived nearby), realizing that he didn't have many friends to start with, and he'd just lost one.

So this guy, now known to be the brother of the singer/narrator, apparently has gone home and found his wife was not there. He assumed she left town. He was still pissed, so he grabbed the gun his daddy had left him. "F***ing Andy is gonna pay for what he did." Brother slipped through the backwoods all quiet like and noticed some footprints that are too small for the big dumb ox. When he got to the house, he peered in through the screen door and saw ol' Andy lying in a puddle of blood. This made him shake.

Knowing that the Georgia patrol was in the area, brother fired off a shot into the air to get their attention. A portly sheriff assumed that the guy with the recently fired gun, standing next to a dead body, probably had something to do with the alleged crime.

Here we will tackle the chorus - "the lights went out" I assume is a metaphor for justice NOT being served. It's hard to find any references without running into 10 jillion lyrics sites and about as many youtube videos of somebody or other performing the song. They hung an innocent man, the brother, as we will soon see. The backwoods southern lawyer was not helpful and there is a suggestion that the judge has some additional involvement ("bloodstains on his hands"), although the song ends before we can find out exactly what.

Back to the verses now - The trial was a farce, the lawyer was evidently not helpful, the judge said guilty and rushed off to dinner after giving the sheriff a pat on the back (here is where we might suspect something amiss in the small-town Georgia judicial system, what with the whole bloodstains thing and all). The narrator turns to direct first person now and confesses that her brother was hanged before she could mention to anybody that the tracks he'd seen on the way to Andy's house were hers, and also that the cheating wife hadn't left town, but that the body will never be discovered. Sister brags that she is a good shot, implying that she'd shot the cheatin' wife and she'd hidden or disposed of the body. (oops, forgot to sign after all that) --LarryMac | Talk 13:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Song of the South Disney film

I read the Wiki article, but need more info. Thanks. What exactly (specifically, particularly) was the big deal and the controversy surrounding the character / portrayal of Uncle Remus (by James Baskett) in the Song of the South? I guess it was such a big deal / controversy that Disney refuses to release the film? Any info? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I've seen this movie twice now, and in my opinion there's nothing wrong with Baskett's performance. What's offensive about this movie has to be inferred. The African-american characters are never described as slaves, tho they obviously are. These characters lead (mostly) carefree lives, and are always deferential to white people, who are very nice but comparatively uptight and busy with adult responsibilities that the lucky blacks will never be burdened with. Modern day Disney apparently decided that this outdated, romanticized, white fantasy of how much the South loved its blacks in the 1800s wouldn't sit well with modern americans, especially since Disney reissues are marketed as good stuff to take the kids to. (Or at least that's how I imagine the decision went.)

In the Wikipedia article, the sections Accusations of racism and Releases and availability sum it up. Perhaps if it weren't a Disney film, it wouldn't get as much attention. It is certainly not hatemongering on the level of The Birth of a Nation. Song of the South, like blackface, is considered a weird and somewhat embarrassing cultural artifact of an america that was less conscious of how it treated blacks. / edg ☺ ★ 08:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen the film and, so, know nothing about the plot (other than what I have read in very general terms). My original question was "getting at" this: are there any offensive actions, conduct, language, etc. that specifically / particularly occur within the story's plot? I mean -- being a Disney film, and a children's film to boot -- I can't imagine that Disney had any controversial elements in the story. Or is the controversy simply (in general terms) how America as a whole treated / perceived Blacks in that historical time frame ... which is really a phenomenon that is separate and apart from the actual film / story itself? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, it is the plot that is considered offensive. Uncle Remus is seen as a major example of an Uncle Tom character - although that article is sorely lacking as well. Read the "Writing" subsection to see the fears even before the script was written. Rmhermen 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The language spoken by the African-American characters is also controversial, in that they use stereotypical "Black" dialect (as do the cartoon characters) which some viewers have considered racist. Corvus cornix 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking of it as an adult, I can see that it would be offensive. As a child I enjoyed it, but thought the little white boy wasn't meant to spend time with the others because they were poor; I thought it was about snobbery. It would never have occured to me that they were slaves, as no indication is given. And that, I suppose, is partly where the offence lies. Skittle 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can read Dixie (song) for a similarly troubled work. "I wish I was in de land ob cotton,/Old times dar am not forgotten ...". --Sean 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Also, Uncle Remus was the original magical negro, an archetype many find inherently offensive. --Sean 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I never knew there was a word for that character. / edg ☺ ★ 23:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How come the tv series An American Family has never been on DVD

An American Family -which was such a sensation has never been put on DVD or even tape. Does anyone know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.220.2.13 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This link [1] suggests that it may be music-rights problems. DuncanHill 00:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Because no-one ever heard of it? Or would that be the other way around? :) DirkvdM 07:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giant pictures drawn on ground

I wonder what those giant pictures drawn on ground are called and where can I see their photographs and read articles about them. Can anyone help me in this regard?Jabir99 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hill figure is an article on giant drawings on the ground in England.

Nazca Lines is about giant drawings in Peru. Blythe Intaglios are giant figures in California.

SaundersW 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See crop circles also. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. Those things you guys mentioned are exactly what I was looking for. Within a couple of hours, I got what I always wanted to know but was shy to ask. Thanks again, you guys are great.Jabir99 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks to you also, for the compliment. Don't be shy to ask, next time ... we don't bite. Take care. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Motion Picture Association of America film rating system

According to the article about Motion Picture Association of America film rating system, it says it's been purchased by Disney. Read the fourth paragraph here. Is that so? --JDitto 23:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not so. The sentence that you cite states: "Before its purchase by Disney, Miramax heads Bob and Harvey Weinstein often clashed with the MPAA, proclaimed the rating system unfair to independents, and released some films unrated to avoid an X or NC-17." That sentence simply means "before Miramax was purchased by Disney." It does not mean "before the MPAA Ratings System was purchased by Disney." In that sentence, the pronoun "its" has an antecedent (the word that the "its" refers to) of "Miramax", not of "the MPAA Ratings System." The MPAA Ratings System is owned by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) organization. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't think Disney can own a rating system and neither does it own the MPAA. It could be just the way that the sentence written is confusing. I know it confused me at least, I thought you were talking about Miramax, I went off and got a reference and everything :-D Take care, Scarian^Talk 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above post. The original sentence is poorly constructed and confusing. I will go edit it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, Joseph. --JDitto 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Disney could indeed own a rating system, as the MPAA is just a private company, despite their desire to appear to be a government agency. It's true that it's unlikely. --Sean 13:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)