Do rail guns in backyard monsters shoot through buildings and blocks? 70.241.16.91 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember watching this film a long time ago but I have no idea what its title is. It was a black and white film, I'd say mid-fifties or early-sixties but I'm not too sure. The plot involved an old lady being held hostage - or something to that effect, I can't fully remember the circumstances - in her home by a trio (I think) of, I don't know, bad guys. I remember quite clearly that she stabs the lead bad guy in the eyes with knitting needles before she makes her escape. And I think that the old lady was crippled too. Hope I'm not being too vague--GroovySandwich 05:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of The Ladykillers. It's from 1955, but it's in colour, and the hoodlums don't really hold the old lady hostage, and I don't remember her needling them. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Desperate Hours (film) is in black and white and has a trio of bad guys, but the hostages are a suburban family. --LarryMac | Talk 13:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no stabbing of the eyes, but Ethel plays a wheelchair-bound old lady who gets Barrymore than she expected when she invites some people into her home in Kind Lady (1951). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Lady might be it. I'll look into it, thanks--GroovySandwich 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when will you start naruto dubbed on cartoon network pakistan?

We??? Wikipedia is not responsible for the production of foreign dubs of Japanese television programs(or Japanese production of Japanese television programs for that matter). i kan reed (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1974 film Caravan to Vaccarès (film), is the Graham Hill who is listed as being the Helicopter pilot the Graham Hill racing driver? (I know the article links to that page, but wonder if it should). -- SGBailey (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to IMDB it is indeed Graham Hill the driver. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And his appearance in that film, and in three others, is mentioned in his own article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.250 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reference desk so why do I always feel so guilty when use it? I feel I am imposing LOL. Ah well, here we go . . .

There is a film about a mercenary group and the early part covers their training. In one scene, the training sergeant takes the men through some bush country and we get some interesting insights into bush/jungle fighting. Later he visits the commanding officer and says that he suspects some of the men may be planning to do him an injury and asks for some back-up help that night. I don't remember what follows. I thought the film might be the Wild Geese as its plot and structure are so similar in the beginning. But it isn't as neither of the two scenes above are in the Wild Geese.

Does anyone know which film I am looking for please? Gurumaister (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I once asked a question here and was told in no uncertain terms that I'm a regular answerer so I have no business asking questions myself. The editor who wrote those utterly stupid words has been rotting in hell ever since, as far as I know. Except for banned users, ALL editors are equally welcome to ask questions here. Please never feel guilty about doing so. I don't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a WAG, but the bit about men in the jungle plotting to frag their seargent reminds me a bit of Platoon. --Jayron32 20:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm also a regular answerer (not as prolific as Jack, though!) and still ask questions.) As to the film, you say about merceneries - people with no set allegiance except for their own financial gain. What sort of period was the film made? When is it set? (Around the same as The Wild Geese?) In any case, you may find Mercenaries in popular culture#Films helpful. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not it considering there aren't any mercenaries in it and it was released a couple decades after The Wild Geese but the original description made me think of Basic. Dismas|^(talk) 02:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirty Dozen? It's been many years since I've seen it, they're not really "mercenaries" but act 2 is described as the "training" part of the film, I don't remember specifically but it sounds quite plausible that some of the dozen would plot to do harm to the training sergeant, was Lee Marvin i think... Vespine (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no jungle training or plot to get the sergeant, who was played by Richard Jaeckel. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been probably 10 years since I've seen it, should have said I didn't think it was it, but thought it might be worth mentioning in case it jogs something... Vespine (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newly released movies are often advertised on TV with the phrase "THIS YEAR". What's this all about? Are they saying that if you only go to the movies once this year, this is the one you should see? Seems a dumb way of marketing things, because the studio will be putting out other movies this year, and surely they don't want you to miss any of them. So, it can't be that. Any clues, folks? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you wait till next year, you can probably see it for free? --Jayron32 20:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ones I've seen say things like "the funniest movie you'll see this year", I think it is a convenient period. If they said "ever", you'd start thinking of all those films back when; such a claim is easily repudiated. A year seems like a long period of time, but if you have say, a dozen good comedies, it's within the range where personal choice comes into play. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me about that is when the year's just started and they're already marking films as the "Most [insert adjective] film of the year!" It may as well be the "Most [whatever] movie until something better comes out next week."--GroovySandwich 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not talking about marketing hype like "The .... est film this year". It's just the specific 2-word phrase "THIS YEAR" that is spoken by the announcer and shown in caps on the screen, somewhere towards the start of the ad. Occasionally it's "THIS SUMMER", but that's an issue because summer where I am is not summer where these movies are made (Hollywood). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got that. That's why I left the comment I did above. The ad is trying to get you to feel a sense of urgency (as in YOU MUST SEE THIS FILM THIS YEAR) hoping you'll forget that there is very marginal value that you get from paying $15 or more per person to see a film that you can see for $1.50 or $2.00 in six months, and which will be on one of the TV movie channels like Encore or Starz or something like that in a year. If you think rationally about your movie viewing habits, you don't get an extra 1000% enjoyment out of a film you see in its first run than you do in seeing the same film in a discount theater in a few months. Because they DON'T want you to think rationally about the choice, they need you to want to see the movie NOW and so use a clever bit of lying we call marketing to get you feel urgency. --Jayron32 22:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know anything about it, but I strongly suspect, that part of it is probably to drive home the fact that this isn't a teaser for some film that'll be out who-knows-when, it'll be out soon, so watch for it. Thing about advertising is that even if the listener could logically puzzle something out in a half-second's thought, it still might be worth saying to make sure that they not just understand it, but remember it and think about it. (I mean, you don't actually need to be reminded that Coca-Cola is delicious,refreshing, and served ice cold. You know that. But telling it to you often still somehow makes you more likely to buy a coke.)APL (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To APL and Jayron. If they are urging you to go the cinema to see the movie (rather than waiting to see it on TV or DVD or downloaded or wherever else), then surely they want you to go NOW, THIS WEEK, VERY SOON, because gone are the days when movies were screened for years or even months at a time. They have short runs, usually a few weeks tops. "THIS YEAR" could mean in up to 11 months' time, when the movie has long since ceased being screened. It just seems way too loose if it's designed to get you off your butt and go to the movies; it's sort of like "When are you going to clean up your room, Johnnie?" - Soon, Mum, I promise. (Sometime this year.)-- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Now I want him to say "This is the most tremendous movie you'll see EXACTLY SIX WEEKS FROM NOW." APL (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the actual phrase "this year" is calibrated so that you'll mark your calendar and schedule a date in the next 12 months to see the movie. They are trying to engender an emotional response. Again, by resorting to reason to disect the meaning of the advertisement, you are missing the point. The advertisers are NOT appealing to your sense of reason; they are attempting to influence your decision by causing an emotional response, one of urgency, if you try to analyze exactly why the phrase is inaccurate in a logical and even-headed manner, then you're probably not the response they are looking for. They just want you to feel impatient about seeing the movie; advertisements are rigorously tested and I am fairly confident that they probably tested various phrases for their effect on people and their likelyhood to see a film, and that phrase probably won. Again, not because they asked people "If we said, "this year", when would you expect to need to see the film", but because the phrase itself, and also likely its context and its delivery, engendered a emotional (read: not rationally thought out) sense of urgency in enough people to make it a useful phrase. This is basically how all of marketing works; 99% of the stuff you spend money on you likely wouldn't if you sat down and did a rational analysis of what you should and shouldn't purchase. The goal of marketing is to seperate you from your money by seperating you from rational thought, and instead try to get you to make decisions based on emotional response. --Jayron32 03:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colour me an alien, then, because it just doesn't have that effect on me. If I'm told to do something this year, that's tantamount to telling me to never do it at all. How can "this year" possibly create any sense of urgency in people? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, when they say "THIS SUMMER" or "THIS YEAR" it's because A) they don't have a firm release date at the time of the trailer's production or B) it is being released on different dates for some unspecified reason. I've also seen things like "JUNE 20XX" or "DECEMBER 20XX". Dismas|^(talk) 02:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes more sense. They'd only market the movie in a particular place if the movie is actually being screened there, or will very soon commence its run there. So they have the flexibility to choose the markets where the ad is currently relevant, and hold off in other places until it's actually about to be screened there. That's good, but what they lose by having one ad for all markets is loss of temporal specificity, so the most accurate thing they can say in a generic ad without misleading anyone is "This Year". Swings and roundabouts. I think I'd rather see different ads for different places, with the time varying, but there's obviously a cost factor. It's amazing how, even though the modern age has given us all such a huge variety of options and choices, sometimes the technology works against us to deny us the choices we used to take for granted. Or old fogies like me did, anyway. But that's a rant for another day. Question resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that they really haven't made the final decision on release date yet, even though they are showing the trailer in order to stimulate audience interest. They might be hedging for unanticipated production delays, or information on release date decisions made by competing studios. I seem to recall reading more than one piece of entertainment news about a movie release being moved in order to gain a better competitive position against other major movie releases. 130.188.8.11 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]