Entertainment desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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.

November 6[edit]

Australian film featuring a deaf girl with a dog[edit]

There was this film from Australia and it was about a deaf girl with a pet dog and her parents wanted to get rid off it because it was too much trouble. What was the name of the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.190 (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you are thinking of ITV Studios's 1997 production Sunny's Ears? -- ToE 02:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...It was a tv series? huh! interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.190 (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found conflicting information about whether it was a TV series or a made-for-TV movie. This page at the studio site might tell the full story, but it requires logging in to a free (I think) account. Please let us know what you find there. -- ToE 07:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 National Football League season schedule[edit]

Does anyone know of an "official" webpage listing the entire schedule? [1] is easy to find on the NFL's website, and it links to a set of week-by-week pages from which such a schedule can easily be constructed. However, I'd like to find a single page with everything (an official page, not some fan page) that would be good as an external link for the 2015 NFL season article. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. --Jayron 32 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think of checking ESPN. I've added a modified link, http://espn.go.com/nfl/schedulegrid/_/year/2015, to the article. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the first site I found offering a printable full schedule for the NFL Season (http://www.advarsitysports.com/s/printable-2015-full-nfl-season-schedule/) I found this website (http://nflschedule2015.org) which allows you to select any team and view their entire schedule. Also I found this page (http://sportsglory.com/nfl/complete-2015-nfl-regular-season-schedule/40211) Which allows you to do the same thing but I believe this one is more "official". Rakn224 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakn224 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grable's message[edit]

This image is in our article on Betty Grable. Who's "Sid"? And why is she apparently saluting the US Navy and US Marine Corps? Is USA in this context the US Army? So what happened to the Air Force? Quite mysterious. --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sid" is most likely Sid Grauman. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right, having clicked through. Any ideas about USA/USN/USMC? --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The slab is dated February 15, 1943, during World War II—it's more than likely that Miss Grable was registering her support for the U.S. troops, one of whose favorite pin-ups she was. And there was no Air Force at the time; the United States Army Air Forces were a branch of the U.S. Army. Deor (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So USA would stand for United States Army? --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Deor (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hayworth's hand and footprints[edit]

Having done some clicking re the previous section, our article List_of_TCL_Chinese_Theatre_handprint_ceremonies has a photo caption, which refers to Rita Hayworth's "legendary" hand and foot prints. What's the legend? There's nothing in the text. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the writer just means "the hand and foot prints of the legendary Rita Hayworth". If so, it's clearly a misuse of the word "legendary" and should be deleted. --Viennese Waltz 11:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll delete it. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note incidentally that this photo provides evidence supporting the answer to the original question! --70.49.170.168 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes series title[edit]

The films produced by Warner Bros. Cartoons are often collectively referred to as "Looney Tunes", although they actually encompass both the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies series - see, for instance, the Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVDs, which contain cartoons from both series. Why did "Looney Tunes" rather than "Merrie Melodies" become the primary title used to refer to all Warner Bros. cartoons, and when did that title first begin to be used in this way? 131.202.114.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merrie_Melodies#Background has some information on the two series. Originally, they were different series with different originss, but eventually they became merged; by 1942 the two series began significant character crossover, and by 1945 " the two series completely appeared indistinguishable" After 1945, there was no rhyme or reason as to which shorts were released under which title. Likely, Warner Brothers continued to maintain both titles to protect the trademark of both. Trademarks that go unused for a period of time may be considered to have lapsed. See Trademark#Maintaining_rights. --Jayron 32 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious reason would be that "Looney Tunes" sounds funnier than "Merrie Melodies". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Looney Tunes article mentions that the name was influenced by Disney's Silly Symphony series. That sentence doesn't have a source though. MarnetteD|Talk 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this could probably help source it. --Jayron 32 16:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I recall reading that factoid, long ago. It makes sense. Early sound cartoons were often primarily vehicles to promote songs - the song would be the centerpiece of the given cartoon. It probably helps that "toon" and "tune", though unrelated terms, are homophones in much of America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say is that it's just as well That Looney Tunes was the title that survived. Otherwise, when the loonie was followed by the toonie, one of the other less euphonious nicknames invented for it might have prevailed. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the Canadian dollar coin features a loon (a type of water bird), and Prime Minister Mulroney (pronounced "Mulrooney") came up with it, hence it was called a "Mulroney Loonie". Then came the two-dollar coin, and "Toonie" seemed a natural. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct (except for the Mulroney reference; at least, I never heard that in my part of Canada), but my point is that Looney Tunes may have made "toonie" seem that much more natural when other nicknames were also invented. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Canadian colleague told me that. I expect once he left officem the "Mulroney" part faded away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that Mulroney story either. Didn't he invent Rice-a-Mulroney, the "Tuktoyaktuk treat"? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of references to it on Google. Here's one from 9 years ago.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly the most R of S's. There's a loon on one side, that's all. Any other story is sheer bal(r)oney. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That blog squares with what my Canadian colleague told me when the coin first came out. You haven't heard of it, but I and some others have. And there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you know. The CBC says "it was briefly called 'Mulroney's loonie' or the 'Mul-loonie'",[4] but they're so clumsy, they must have been discarded very quickly. Th-th-th-that's all folks! Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise. I don't know what you mean about the "clumsy" part, but the victims of the loonie eventually discarded the guy who foisted it on them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clumsy as in awkward to say. "I had so many Mulroney's loonies in my pocket, it ripped." Doesn't exactly flow off the tongue. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It merely flows out of the torn pocket. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphilias and Fetishes[edit]

When it comes to human sexual behavior, the word normal is quite unusual. However, why is it that men appear to have a more wild variety of sexual preferences than women, on general. I mean, I've never heard of women humping corpses, shagging sheep or engaging in golden showers or scat orgies. In general, women seem to be much more sedate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egad! A rather eyebrow raising set of enquiries old boy! Well old chap, I have been around a long time and I've seen a lot of odd things in my career so I might be able to shine a little ray of light on this. I would surmise that, not to put too fine a point on it, dead fellows can't "perform" so to speak, which would preclude your first scenario. As for the second, well Bodil Joensen was notorious for being very fond of animals and if are of a brave mindset a quick internet search (do make sure it's not illegal to view such things in your locale first!) would show that the other two activities are by no means a male only preserve. I would suggest that women are less likely to admit to any of the latter three activities, not that they are less inclined to indulge in them. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want your eyebrows raised, let me bring up a death erection. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ^{[citation needed]} on everything the OP states regarding the depth and breadth of sexual interests of males vs. females. There, as far as I can find, has never been any serious study of human sexuality that states that man are more "wild" in their sexual interests. "I've never heard of..." is not a valid means of trying to understand all of humanity, as "I" is universally an insignificant proportion of "humanity". If the OP is genuinely interested in learning about human sexuality, the history of the study of human sexuality starts with the research done by Masters and Johnson and Alfred Kinsey in the early-to-middle 20th century. While their original research is somewhat dated, the work continues with modern researchers, the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction is still a place to get research from this subject, if the OP is interested in expanding their understanding, I would start there. --Jayron 32 02:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis should be on the list, as well. Tevildo (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible the OP has never been with a woman, which would tend to limit his knowledge of what they might like or not like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one of my girls had a thing about grabbing onto testicles all night and having sex is exotic locations. Although, she did have a damaged background so I consider her exceptional. But back OT, do a search for 'porn'. You'll find it overwhelmingly caters to MEN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Industry analysts say that more than 70% of all adult films made still cater to the tastes of men". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That 70 percent are assuming they know what men want and women don't want. It's not a safe assumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the initial question was not about who porn film producers target their films at. The initial question was about what interests people, sexually, based on gender. Those are two different questions. --Jayron 32 10:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And with the example the OP gave of his own alleged experience, he contradicted his premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]