Entertainment desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 9

Identify this commercial

I remember seeing a commercial from sometime during the 2000s which has the Blue Danube waltz in the background and features several people dropping their laptops (which break into pieces) onto city streets. What was this commercial advertising? Is it still online anywhere? 128.2.247.155 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nude commercial

I remember there was a commercial where a couple knock on the door of another couple who answered the door nude. What was the commercial about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.174 (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What country were you in when you saw the commercial? That will help a lot in narrowing down the possibilities. In much of Europe, for instance, partial nudity is a pretty common tactic for making a commercial, whether the aim is to be funny, sexy, or just attention-grabbing. In the USA, not so much. --M@rēino 20:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because nudity will not grab anyone's attention in the States. :-P Nudity is used in US ads but it's always just implied and not shown. Dismas|^(talk) 06:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What was it about? It was about 30 seconds. Clearly nowhere near long enough to explore the subject in sufficient detail. One thing for sure, it was not likely in the U.S. or it would have been front-page news on the New York Times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can think of a more inane response than that! Caesar's Daddy (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight question

Hello there,

I've never read or watched any of the Twilight franchise's material (other than a quick glance at the wiki pages in order to answer the following question) so this may be very obvious to those of you who have.

Why exactly does the main character Edward attend high school if he's 108 years old?

As I say, I've no real interest in the franchise (I dare say it's aimed at a slightly different demographic than mine) and have seemingly picked up what little information I have on it from the cultural zeitgeist but this one point has stuck out and been needling me.

Thank you kindly, Gallaghp (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's the age of the target demographic? In all seriousness, I have no idea either but the cynic in me couldn't pass this up... Dismas|^(talk) 10:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely and appreciate the ludicrous notion of my question. Trying to apply logic to teenage fantasy fiction is much like trying to touch the moon, a near pointless endeavour. Still... Gallaghp (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows... [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesleyhood (talk • contribs) 12:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were turned when they were teenagers, so will always look like teenagers. Therefore attending high school is good cover (stops people from saying, "hey why aren't you in school" then calling the authorities and creating a load of problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.85 (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He does say that he already knows everything they learn so it's very boring for him...I forget if that's in the movie or the book or both, but there is a discussion about it. (I'm ashamed that I know this much so I won't go looking for page numbers, sorry!) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ashamed? It's just a book / movie. Or are you one of those "herp derp MUST HATE TWILIGHT FFFFFFFFFF I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY I HATE IT BUT IT MUST DIE" people?

I know why I hate it. I hate it because it sucks. (Lousy softcore Mormon porn!) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking existing horror tropes and rewriting them to be, frankly goofy, fantasy/romance elements turns a lot of people off. Not everyone, of course, but if you can't understand and accept that then perhaps you could run along and let the grown ups talk? APL (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they'd just confine themselves to their coffins or whatever during the day, that wouldn't be much of a problem. Of course, that would make for a rather unexciting read. decltype (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires in Twilight don't sleep in coffins, nor do they actually sleep. Plus, since they don't burn in sunlight why wouldn't they want to come out during the day

But they do sparkle so they don't go out when it's really sunny... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the idea of sparkly vampires turns off a lot of fans of the vampire genre. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point one: 82.43 is correct about the changing when they were teenagers (alhough I don't think it's ever stated in the story as such; itg's just one of those things) Point two: APL, could you please be nicer to the anonymous user? He/She is correct, there are a lot of "herp derp must hate Twilight" people out there, and they're almost as bad as the ravenous fangirls. "aking existing horror tropes and rewriting them to be, frankly goofy, fantasy/romance elements" what ever happened to origonality? Stephanie Meyer didn't say all vampires had to be that way (and if somebody would make that clear to half of todays YA authors I'd be very much obliged. Point three: none of this was intended to offend anybody, I'm just putting in my two cents since everybody else seems to be Library Seraph (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is for Edward, he is specifically stated to be 17 (or to have been made a vampire when he was 17). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was more polite than the person I was responding to. And, contrary to your assertion, (s)he was not correct. (S)He was not assuming good faith and applying a sweeping stereotype to another editor who was correctly answering a question on the reference desk. All I did was act a little condescending. (And I think you'll find that so did the person I was responding to.) APL (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But claiming that the other guy was being more rude than you doesn't necessarily negate the fact that you were also being offensive, nor does it justify your actions in any way....I'm just saying.Johnnyboi7 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the original question, I think another reason why all the Cullen children go to the local high school is because it helps the entire family keep up the human facade that they're so desperate to keep. Johnnyboi7 (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

What are the minimum ratings a broadcast network (not cable) will accept to continue production of a prime-time show? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single answer to this. It depends on a lot of other factors. Including, but not limited to, the price of producing the show (Is it a cheap reality show? Or a Sci-Fi program with expensive sets, big name actors, and elaborate special effects?), the ratings of competing shows of the same type or in the same timeslot, whether they want to use any of those resources for other programs, how well it works in with the rest of their network's offerings, how well those demographics overlap with the demographics of the previous and following shows .... etc etc etc. It's a very complicated decision that can't be reduced to a single number. APL (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, the networks are not the producers of the shows, just the funders and the show's production company sometimes sells the show to another network after cancellation. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad ratings won't necessarily sink a show, and good ratings won't necessarily save it. There can be any number of reasons for keeping a show going or killing it. Shows like The Beverly Hillbillies were killed off because they were too successful, and some executives at CBS didn't want the network associated with that kind of show. I think that happened to Gilligan's Island also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]