This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ballchef (talk | contribs) at 04:13, 25 June 2012 (→2012 European Grand Prix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

• WP:RD/E

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 19

No-hit run

What is the most runs scored in a certain duration of time without a single hit? (This is about baseball.) 71.146.10.213 (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure offhand, but in the game of April 22, 1959, the White Sox scored 11 runs on one hit in the 7th against the K.C. Athletics. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Googling starts to turn up some interesting items. This item indicate 4 runs in an 8-inning "no-hitter" (the type of game no longer considered an official no-hitter), although that's not quite what the OP is asking for. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There have been five occasions where a team has lost a game without giving up a hit, the most infamous being the one Baseball Bugs referred to.: July 1, 1990 — Andy Hawkins pitching for the Yankees gave up 4 runs without a hit to lose to the White Sox 4-0. (box) (I remember watching that game. It was during the Yankees' last chasm, between the Reggie Jackson / Thurman Munson era and the current string of winning seasons. They were always finding new ways to lose.) Other teams losing without giving up a hit were: June 21, 1890 — Brooklyn 1 Chicago 0 (Players League) (no box available); April 23, 1964 — Reds 1 Colt .45s 0 (box); April 12, 1992 — Indians 2 Red Sox 1 (box); June 28, 2008 — Dodgers 1 Angels 0 (box).    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 12:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There have also been a bunch of other games where the losing team in a no-hitter scored a run. See here for recent cases --Xuxl (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the record for most runs in an inning without a hit? I think that's closer to what the OP wants.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In Andy Hawkins' quasi no-hitter mentioned above, all four runs were scored in the same inning without the benefit of a hit. It's the only such major league inning I can find through my googling. I'm surprised; I thought there would have been at least a couple of times when 5 runs were scored without a hit, but I can't find any examples. --Xuxl (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In that 1959 White Sox game, 9 of the 11 runs came after the one and only hit, and before there were any outs. If you erase the runner who got the hit, that's still 8 consecutive runs scored without anyone getting a hit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the tricky thing about this question. There are no official records kept of partial innings. Who knows if there are cases where a team gets one out, scores some runs without a hit, then gets another out. Details of such incidents would be anecdotal in newspapers, etc., but not in official records.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to all. I found the first box score provided by Michael J to be quite interesting. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Films set in post-war Berlin

Can anyone recommend, or list a few films set in post-WW2 Berlin, right around 1945-46? They don't need to be in English, but the more modern the better. I can't think of any myself. Shadowjams (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We have List of films set in Berlin which is arranged chronologically. It suggests one term you might try searching on: Trümmerfilm, for rubble film -- films dealing with the impact of the war, using battle-damaged cities for exteriors. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That list is organized by date of creation, not setting, but it's a good start as is the "rubble film". I'm hoping for a story set against that backdrop more a film that focuses on the "rubble". Thank you for your help. Shadowjams (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Included in that list is one I would recommend, Ten Seconds to Hell. It's black and white and mono, though, so isn't particularly modern. However, color might not suit a backdrop of rubble, like it doesn't suit film noir. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Shadowjams, you're right, and I should have been more clear when I suggested the link. What I was trying to point you toward were films set in Berlin, with the assumption that no film set in post-WWII Berlin could have been made *before* the 40s, but not that every film on the list was set both in Berlin and immediately post-WWII -- that there would be some trawling through that would have to be done for that. Glad it was of some help, anyway. Good luck with your search! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Germany Year Zero is highly rated. I taped it recently from TCM, so I guess I better watch it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you really tape it ? Or did you record it by a more modern method ? StuRat (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

When I say "tape", I mean good old God-fearing tape. None of those newfangled works of the Devil for me. Why, if I could find my slide rule, I'd rap you smartly across the knuckles. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See, I'm not the only one who chooses not to live in "modern times". There are more than enough people keeping up with progress; but 100% of everything's that's ever happened in the Universe has happened in the past. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 06:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that not everything new is automatically better, I definitely think VHS sucked, always going off track, adding static, and needing rewinds. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Meh, Germany Year Zero was just okay, but there was an impressive amount of real rubble. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not recent, but there's A Foreign Affair. Deor (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Good German is recent, with big-name actors, directed by Steven Soderbergh. Staecker (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

European Championship Music

Good evening,

first of all: Congrats to win the group. ;)

I am searching for a specific song, which is played at (all?) Euro-Stadiums so far, before the kickoff, while (on TV) showing the line-ups. We've discussed a lot on dewp, but didn't find an answer so far. The following ones are not meant (mixture of titles and performers):

Burn it Down

Endless Summer

Heart of Courage

Sirius (Parson Project)

Requiem for a Dream

Los Colorados

It is kind of calmative sound, with a choral sung by men at the beginning. Does anyone know what I am talking about? Would be very nice... =)

Best regards sent to you by your semifinal-opponent. --Hephaion (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As one of the English Misplaced Pages editors round here, I shall accept your congratulations and refer the others to Euro 2012, and presume you're from Italy. I can't place the song you're referring to, it's quite possible different television companies use different songs. ITV in England, for example, use the orchestral introduction to Bitter-Sweet Symphony by the Verve. I suspect it's not that you're referring to. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my question. The song is not played by the broadcasting company, but in the stadium itself. Therefore, it is difficult to unterstand due to commentators and spectators, but nevertheless I thought somebody could help me indeed. Kind regards. --Hephaion (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's Heart of Courage by Two Steps from Hell, particularly the section starting at 1:10 here. Nanonic (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

June 20

Unknown Arcade Game

So i have a faint memory of an arcade game we had at our old bowling alley. You could play as a godzilla type character, a robot thing...like i said, faint. But you had to travel through cities causing destruction until you got to the boss battle, and it goes on like that. (and no it wasnt Rampage). If anyone has any clue please let me know. the juggresurection 04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This might be King of the Monsters from SNK. --McDoobAU93 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, i had alot of fun playing this as a kid. Next stop: coolrom.com :P the juggresurection 04:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pogo games has a similar game online, PoppaZoppa, here. It's free with ads, or ad-free, with a subscription. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In poker, how are ties handled ?

Let's say the two hands are:

A♦ K♦ Q♦ J♦ 10♦

A♣ K♣ Q♣ J♣ 10♣

Who wins ? StuRat (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You go by suit rank of the highest card. This is normally spades beats hearts; beats clubs; beats diamonds. But black diamonds like yours might be special. See High card by suit. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but μηδείς is incorrect. In poker, suits have no rank. This would simply be a tie, and the players would split the pot equally.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're both wrong. The players tie, but the house always wins. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

With hands like these, the maximum rake would have been reached quite early in the round. --jpgordon 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am not aware of any UN treaties or natural laws regarding rank for you two to be making absolute statements. There are house rules. The one I gave is a standard one--and I didn't write the article I linked to. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure there are house rules. The link you gave says "Most poker games do not rank suits" - which means that, in most cases, the pairs of hands StuRat provided would be tied, period. Then it says "No standard ranking of suits exists for all poker games". So, it's possible that the order of suits you gave could apply under the rules of a certain house that uses a ranking, but it's completely arbitrary what the ranking is, or even whether there's a ranking at all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, correct, that's what house rules mean, although "by convention" is a probably better term than "arbitrary". And when a rank is used it's most often the one I gave (at least where I live), which is why I said "normally" in my first post. (Although you contradict yourself when you say "most cases" and then "tied period.") If I had substantially disagreed with the article I linked to I would have used another one. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious, have you actually encountered any forms of poker where suits are ranked? --jpgordon 23:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No contradiction there. In most poker games, it's treated as a tie and that is the end of the matter - in those games. This is almost diametrically in conflict with your opening response "You go by suit rank of the highest card". That is true only in those games that rank suits, which is the minority of games. But your response reads as if it's a universal rule for all games. It's patently not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Strictly OR here, but I have never played in, nor seen (either live or on television), a poker game that ranks suits. Perhaps it is a house rule somewhere, but this is literally the first time I have heard of such a rule. I have learned something, thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I really supposed to believe that when I said that one ranking was normal I really meant universal? Or that it was necessary to explain that if you don't rank suits there is no ranking? Or that I linked to a stub which just by chance (1 in 24, btw) used the same ranking of suits I learned as a kid? In any case, I am an American, so I win. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In every poker tournament I've ever seen, the hand in the OP would be a split pot. I've never heard of suit mattering on modern poker. Shadowjams (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

While Medeis and their friends are free to invent any rules they want, and can even give it any name they want, under any recognizable form of poker among just about any other context, poker suits are not ranked (some games do rank suits, like Bridge). Tie hands are truly tied, and the pot is split. I have played a lot of poker in a lot of contexts with a lot of different people for probably longer than some of the people who regularly appear here have been alive. I have never played a single hand of poker where the suits mattered. --Jayron32 02:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Medeis, the only time the word "universal" previously appeared in this thread was in my post, where I was rebutting your initial answer that "You go by suit rank of the highest card". That was the universal-sounding statement I objected to. You added that "normally spades beats hearts; beats clubs; beats diamonds", which left the impression that, while the exact ranking might be a matter for the house, in any given game there will always be some ranking that is used in these situations. I never claimed that you said one particular ranking always applies, because you did not make such a statement. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 04:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what I have already said is clear enough. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And just to get really complicated, the ranking of the suits in the game of bridge, from high to low is spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs, with no-trump (which is not a suit) out-ranking everything. Bielle (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

High-profile actors in voice-only roles

When they started using big name stars for voice roles (back in the '70s, I guess), it was always presented as "featuring the voices of ………". Now, it's evolved to "starring ………".

That makes sense in an obvious capitalistic sense, in that the actors will probably only agree to participate these days if their billing suggests no less an involvement than that of someone actually acting in a normal visible live-action sense (even though it's patently way less).

But doesn't it sort of degrade the meaning of the verb "to star". If there was a live-action movie in which one role is for a character who is never seen and whose voice is only ever heard from an adjoining room or over a telephone, the person supplying that voice could hardly claim to be a star of the movie, unless it was so designed that their incorporeal voice dominated the story line. I've never heard of a movie like that, but I suppose it would be possible. I sort of doubt the actor supplying that voice would be eligible to be nominated for an Oscar for acting, but I could be completely wrong on that score.

So how can they make these claims of "starring" when it comes to cartoons and such like? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 23:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What's to stop them? Wiktionary defines "to star" as "To appear as a featured performer or headliner"; so put their name in the ad is to define the person right then and there as starring in the movie. --jpgordon 23:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Link to discussion the last time this came up. --Viennese Waltz 23:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What's to stop them? Well, obviously nobody and nothing is stopping them, which is why it happens, which is why I'm asking a question about this questionable practice. When applied to animated productions, that definition could at least as much apply to the animators who spend thousands of hours producing the finished result, as to those who supply the voices, who might do all their work in a week or less. Thanks for the link. I was merely the ultimoverbalist in that particular discussion so the details didn't remain in my head. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 00:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Billing of actors is always a big deal contractually. And it's nothing new. One good example is the 1950s TV sitcom The Honeymooners. Note the billing: "Jackie Gleason ... The Honeymooners ... with the stars, Art Carney, Audrey Meadows, and Joyce Randolph." There you have, succinctly, the order of importance of each element of the credits. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think your critical mistake is assuming voice work is somehow less demanding or less worthy acting than on screen or on stage. I think that sort of elitism, as well as other kinds (stage acting as "legit" theater as opposed to movie, movie acting as more artistic than TV) is demeaning to the profession. In some ways voice acting is even more difficult because your voice has to carry all of the human weight of the performance, you can't be a broad actor when your only medium of conveying emotion is through voice. Of course the animation imparts just as much as the voice but in the same way as in a live action film set design, CGI, music scoring and costuming carry just as much of the weight of a performance as the actors. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The gold standard of voice acting would be Mel Blanc, who didn't just "do voices", he gave them distinctive personalities. Supposedly, in the recording studio, he wouldn't just do the voice, he would also take on a particular pose and expression, to "get into character". Blanc also honed his craft on the radio, of course. Radio actors in general made good voice actors, since they had to know how to convey that emotion through voice, as you're describing. Voice acting is an art. Not everyone can do it well. I should also mention that Blanc was one of the first voice actors, if not THE first, to get an on-screen credit. That began a trend. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sí. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A star is anyone whose name in the credits (or by word of mouth) will draw viewers. I rent movies all the time by searching for the likes of Victoria Abril or Fanny Ardant, the hottest 70 year old on the planet. μηδείς (talk)

A French cousin of Dale Ardor, perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean Arden? Or is that from Flesh Gordon? Or Fanny's sister Amorosa Bottoms? Ardant played Mary de Guise in Elizabeth (film) and an archangel (I presume] in Don't Tempt Me. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In the Flesh. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fanny Ardant seems to be 63. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 03:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

HominidMachinae, I take your point about assuming voice work is somehow less demanding or less worthy acting than on screen or on stage. I wasn't saying it's less demanding while it's happening, just that it can all be wrapped up far more quickly than the work of live-action actors, but they still demand their humungous millions (Cameron Diaz got $20 million for providing her voice for Shrek, not bad for a week's work). I guess the other thing is the ambiguity that this usage has brought to sentences like "She has starred in 14 films to date". Previously, that meant she made 14 live action films with her as the star, and we could if we like watch all of them and compare her performances. Now, that sentence could mean she has made 3 live action films and 11 animated films. A comparison of her "performances" in the first 3 with her "performances" in the other 11 would be a far harder ask. People who'd never heard of her before they were wowed by her the first time, might be tempted to go and rent/buy all her movies on the assumption they'd be getting 14 different experiences of her beautiful face and body, only to discover all they're getting is multiple experiences of her voice, which is not remotely what they were interested in. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 03:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hiring actors like that to provide animated voices is something of a sore point for professional voice actors. I remember reading an interview with Billy West where he ranted at length about it. You might not even know who Billy West is, and you probably wouldn't know him if you saw him, but if you've watched a cartoon in the past 30 years you definitely know his voice (and Maurice LaMarche...Rob Paulsen...Frank Welker...) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a quite reasonable sore point, countered (I guess) by the primary driving force in Hollywood. Popular names on movie marquees (or the equivalent thereof) sell tickets. There isn't much more to it than that. Countless examples of producers picking star quality over talent exist. --jpgordon 16:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

West had a reasonable point, but it's somewhat over-whelmed by the fact that many of the biggest stars to voice animated films have also (perhaps coincidentally) turned in great performances - Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy in Shrek (Diaz was okay), Murphy in Mulan, and the one that started it all - Robin Williams in Aladdin. Without Myers, Shrek is a one-off cartoon that goes nowhere; without Williams, Aladdin dulls the 1990s Disney resurgence. There's also something to be said for not having every single cartoon character voiced by one of the one or two dozen people that do 90% of the background jobs. Matt Deres (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out other actors who are primarily famous for their voice work. Hank Azaria does do live acting as well, but he is far better known for his voice work (mostly in conjucntion with The Simpsons. Jim Cummings is something of a modern day Mel Blanc, he has an amazing ability to change voices, even being able to mimic characters made famous by earlier actors. Paul Winchell was another well known as a famous voice actor. Andy Serkis has become a famous voice actor known for his pioneering work in motion-capture acting. --Jayron32 04:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your thoughtful comments. The bottom line is they didn't use the "starring" terminology for voice acting back in the 1970s when big-name stars started getting into the act. That's a matter of historical record. If "starring" had always been accepted as applying to voice acting, there'd have been no holding back. Somewhere along the way since then, some bright spark decided they could stretch the meaning, it became an accepted usage, dictionaries have recorded it, and here we are. Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The early motion pictures often didn't identify their actors either. Over time, film marketers figured out the value of "star power". Mel Blanc got a credit because he demanded it in his contract negotations. The downside of that is that it gave the idea that he did all the voices, which was often not the case. In relatively recent times the actors behind the voices were assumed to add to the star power of a cartoon, and to potentially increase revenue. It's always about money, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

June 21

Question about boxing and rematches

With the controversy of Manny Pacquiao's controversial loss to Timothy Bradley, perhaps one of the most controversial fight results in recent memory, not yet dying down, and with Pacquiao now wanting a rematch, I was thinking – has there ever been cases where a boxer scored a controversial upset over a champion but later refused to have a rematch? For example, Boxer A scores a controversial upset over Boxer B, but later Boxer A declines Boxer B's request for a rematch. Has such a thing ever occurred? Narutolovehinata5

Certainly. George Foreman was stripped of his title after refusing a rematch after a controversial victory over Axel Schulz (just as one example.) I found this interesting article while researching this. --jpgordon 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

June 23

Sports siblings team/organization

Is it fair for sports to have the all of the siblings on the same team/organization as each other or majority them or spit them up? How often does this happened or will happened in the future?

Mean just look at NHL and majority of Staal brothers (Eric, Jordan-traded from Pittsburgh Penguins and Jared) on/in Carolina Hurricanes. With the remaining brother (Marc being on different team-NY Rangers) then them. Jordan could have just been traded to Rangers as much as the Hurricanes. But The Hurricanes had the better offer of the two teams that Penguins ended up choosing and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a business. "Fairness" doesn't really enter into it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It would also depend on the siblings...Daniel and Henrik Sedin on the same team is a powerful combination. Wayne and Brett Gretzky on the same team probably wouldn't make much of a difference. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it fair for one team to have better players than another team? Or is that the essence of sport? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

At least Michael Schumacher and his brother Ralf were never team mates, although they were in the same series. For me it's all right if siblings want to be in the same sport as long as they prove that they are good players in their own right (like Eli Manning and Peyton Manning). In fact, siblings can be quite a combination in sports (just look at Phil and James Younghusband, both of them are good football players in their own right, but they still frequently work together. As long as there's chemistry, then they'll be fine. Narutolovehinata5 12:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

June 24

Othello (2001): John Othello and Ben Jago?

I have a question regarding the relationship between John Othello and Ben Jago? They share a very complex relationship and I'm struggling to put it to words. Because even though, throughout the film, Jago is hellbent on sabotaging John Othello at the start he states (about Othello), "I loved him to you know".

Any help is greatly appreciated! 220.233.24.164 (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you read our article (Othello (2001 TV film))? Particularly the last paragraph:

Finally, the film adopts a modern idea of the 21st century proposed at the time, inferring that the relationship between Othello and Iago is one of repressed homosexuality. Jago states that "It was about love, simple as that". This could be taken as a double meaning: 1.) Being the love between Othello and Dessie, and 2.) The repressed love Jago has for Othello. This is further hinted at by his refusal to let Lulu masturbate him during their foreplay, and his stating that " loved too".

The film is obviously based on Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice, although apparently it plays more strongly on the possible repressed homosexuality between Othello and Iago/Jago (Sorry, but I haven't seen either the film or the play). You will find a lot of scholarly thoughts about their relationship through Google searches - try 'othello iago relationship' or 'othello iago homosexual' for starters. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please identify this horror TV series/film

I saw a glimpse of some horror TV series or film in the 1980s or 1990s. There were syringes filled with a fluorescent substance, and injecting a person with this caused his/her hair to fall out in large clumps, following in a gruesomily messy death a few seconds afterwards. (Exactly how gruesomily messy it was, I must have blocked from my memory.) At one point, the doctor who invented this whole substance was thrown onto a whole cart of these syringes, dying the same messy death as everyone else injected with them. That's all I remember. Which TV series or film was it? JIP | Talk 20:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

DVD Disclaimer

When I pop in a DVD that has commentaries/featurettes, I'm always confused about the message that appears stating that (paraphrasing) "the commentaries and statements contained herein are solely those of the people providing them and do not represent the thoughts or opinions of 20th Century Fox/Columbia Pictures/Disney/Whatever"

While I assume that there's a standard legal mumbo jumbo reason for requiring such a disclaimer, I notice it only appeared once commentaries and the like became standard, that is, my old VHS tapes do not have this disclaimer.

My question is: What's so different about have commentaries and features that require such distance for the parent company? Should I then assume that the FILM itself does contain the opinions of the parent company? That's a tongue-in-cheek question, obviously the answer is no, but then why suddenly start disclaiming when nobody was ever assuming that ANYTHING said in a movie or in an interview was the sworn statement of anyone but the person talking?71.243.94.115 (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

June 25

2012 European Grand Prix

Two trivia questions about yesterdays awesome F1 grand prix:

1) When was the last time (if ever) that three FORMER (non-reigning) world champions shared the podium?

2) Have there ever been that many championships (10) represented on a podium before? (The combined number of c'ships among the three men is 10 - MSC 7, ALO 2, RAI 1). The same three last shared a podium at the 2005 French Grand Prix but at the time neither Alonso nor Raikkonen had won championships.

Thanks for your help! Ballchef (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I have done some research for myself, it seems the answer to question 2 is no. Without going through every race record, it seems impossible due to the different era's that Schumi, Fangio and Prost raced in.

The next highest # of championships represented on a podium I believe are the 1993 Japanese Grand Prix and the 1993 Australian Grand Prix, where Prost and Senna shared the podium, at the time with 6 c'ships between them (Prost recently crowned his 3rd), and also the 2001 United States Grand Prix where Schumacher and Hakkinen shared the podium, at the time also having 6 c'ships between them (Schumi recently crowned his 4th). But they both involve only two racers on the podium. The next highest I can find with all three drivers contributing are the 2011 Japanese Grand Prix and the 2011 Indian Grand Prix, where recently crowned Vettel shared the podium with Alonso and Button both times, for a 5 combined c'ships

(Of course I am not counting times where Schumi or Fangio were the sole champions on the podium)

But I still need an answer for question 1! I'm guessing the answer will be no, and this is another world first! Ballchef (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

name of the movie

What was the name of the movie where it was about a guy who had a car whose license plate was "D-fense" and he left his car on the side of the road and he went to his place home by walking and throughout that journey he faced two latino gangsters and a korean owner of a store and then he was shot by Len Lesser at the end of the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.54 (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums