Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Mozart.27s K. 98 symphony

What is the English title of the ninth chapter of Time Traveler Luke, the one between Mr. X and The Last Time Travel? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Apparently, "The Blacksmith's Legacy".^{[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBEFMonRy4M]}  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Note for other users: If the answer is already present in the draft I linked to, that's because I edited it after this question was answered. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

= April 25 =

Will Kalibak be in The Superman movie in 2025? 50.100.64.145 (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Reviewing the article Superman (2025 film), it does not appear so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, The Shining (film) states:

: Furthermore, the filmmaker did not believe in ghost stories because that "would imply the possibility that there was something after death," and he did not believe there was anything, "not even hell."

I was quite interested by this quote but there is no source. (The two sources around it do not have it. Google Web only returns a few recent cites of the wiki article sans source, [https://screenrant.com/stanley-kubrick-refused-read-stephen-king-shining-script/ eg this 2022 Screen Rant article sounds like it was written from wiki-pilfering]. Google Books and Google Scholar and Google News have zilch. I don't have access to academic resources.) While I understand this may come from a print interview not online, or be some literal translation of a foreign interview, it also looks like a fake quote...

Can someone find a decent source for it? Thanks, 77.147.79.62 (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:While I can't independently corroborate Kubrick not believing in ghost stories, I don't see why you think this 'looks like a fake quote'.

:Regarding his thoughts about an afterlife, and hell, see our article Political and religious beliefs of Stanley Kubrick, in particular its closing paragraph:

::'In Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, Jack Nicholson recalls that Kubrick said The Shining is an overall optimistic story because "anything that says there's anything after death is ultimately an optimistic story." Stephen King recounts hearing the same thing from Kubrick in conversation with him, and replied, "What about hell?" King says there was a pause and Kubrick answered, "I do not believe in hell." '

:{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.194.109.80 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::In looking at Newspapers.com (pay site), I found a King quote similar to that one in contemporary writeups about the movie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::From a purely logical point of view, one can be an atheist yet not exclude the possibility of physical manifestations of immaterial beings. The source of the statement in our article The Shining is almost certainly the testimony of Kubrick's stepdaughter, quoted in the section {{section link|Political and religious beliefs of Stanley Kubrick#Religion}}:

:::I asked him once after The Shining, if he believed in ghosts. He said that it would be nice if there "were" ghosts, as that would imply that there is something after death. In fact, I think he said, "Gee I hope so."

::It is a bit of a stretch from this quote to the declarative statement in the article The Shining.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Watched My Penguin Friend last night. According to [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8609660 the film's IMDB page], CGI was used for 15% of the shots, while animatronics accounted for the final 5%. If you're directing a film and have access to CGI software and skilled users, and access to animatronic animals, what factors would influence your decision to use one or the other? In this film, where hazardous situations could endanger the animatronics (e.g. the character falls down a cliff and swims, injured, in the ocean), I'm a bit surprised that animatronics were used at all. Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:[https://ikarus3d.com/media/3d-blog/why-nolan-prefers-practical-effects-over-cgi-a-breakdown/ Here] you can read why film director Christopher Nolan prefers practical effects over CGI. While this focuses on Nolan, the reasons pertain to any director who puts great value in their films having the feel of recorded physical reality. This is less important for most fantasy and many adventure films. For these, effects being unrealistically spectacular is more important for the box office success hoped for.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:That same aspect is important for a movie like My Penguin Friend were the theme asks for the expression of a lot of genuine empathy from the actors. Implied projection from them into their (required) theme park mood might be made easier with them interacting with, or witnessing animatronics action than their looking for inspiration by processing unfinished CGI displays. --Askedonty (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

= April 26 =

There appears to be a standardised stats box that appears in articles on football (soccer) players. It lists clubs played for, season, and by competition, with two performance columns - appearances and goals. This seems to be used regardless of the position of the player. This is very oudated way of recording key performance data for footballers. Only forwards are judged primarily on goals, and even there assists are also significant. for defenders and goalkeepers, however, simply listing goals is meaningless. There is no reason why additional columns for 'clean sheets', and others like 'goals conceded per 90 mins' could not be inserted into the standard template. Would you consider this? I appreciate there may not be an official 'standard template' but there clearly is a template that people use for these articles, which they must get from somewhere, and it would good to change it to provide more relevant data. Creeves25 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can you provide an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:The right place to raise your concerns is Template talk:Infobox football biography. Note, however, that your point on goalkeeper stats was discussed almost twenty years ago and rejected - see Goalies. --Viennese Waltz 17:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::I see that that template talk lists some soccer-related projects. I would think questions like this one would get broader attention at one of those projects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:This issue appears in all team sports where not all members of the team share the same role: football, hockey, road cycling. Sporters can be valuable to the team without personally scoring points, but there's no simple statistic to quantify their usefulness. Number of drinking bottles delivered to the team leader? Nobody keeps track of that. PiusImpavidus (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Listing goals is not entirely meaningless, since those knowlagable about the game will be able to put the number for non-striking-position players in the context of what might be expected for those positions. The problem with more elaborate stats is that most were simply not compiled until relatively recently (even formally noting 'assists' is quite new to this sexegenarian), so the effort of calculating them, even if the necessary base data were to be available, would be immense. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.194.109.80 (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC).

::Fine, but going forward the stats box could have columns for this data (being left blank for older players for whom such data doesn't exist), yes? Creeves25 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, goals scored for goalkeepers is meaningless, and clean sheets data is readily available since at least 1992-3 Creeves25 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::See List of goalscoring goalkeepers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

= April 28 =