June 13

I heard several songs on the radio, the first two I remember a bit of lyrics for which are listed, the third I don't remember any of, but I remember the gist of the song... can anyone help identify them?

song 1: "i'm a joker, i'm a smoker..."

song 2: "running from the long arm of the law" "coming down from the gallows"

song 3 was (i think) about girls in a school who appeared to be trying to flirt with a (male?) teacher, apparently twice their age...

thanks for any help! 69.154.180.133 (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first one is The Joker (song). Deor (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The second is "Renegade" by Styx, and possibly number three could be Don't Stand So Close to Me, by The Police. Finalius (Say what?) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are it... thanks! 69.154.180.133 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more song, ummm, it had "small town" in almost literally every other line... any help? thanks! 69.154.180.133 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That last is definitely Tainted Love by Soft Cell. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Unless it was that one about Seymour. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost definitely John Melloncamp's "Small Town". I don't know where you'd get the idea that it was "Tainted Love" as that song doesn't include the words "small town" at all. Dismas|^(talk) 04:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "small town" one is undoubtedly "Small Town" by John Mellencamp. "Tainted Love" contains the phrase "small town" exactly zero times. --Jayron32 04:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did we not get an edit conflict there?? Dismas|^(talk) 04:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I already mentioned the John Cougar song. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you left 1) a reference to Tainted Love, which doesn't contain the words 2) A link to the Tommy James song "Crimson and Clover", a song so annoying, its use in warfare has been banned by the Geneva Convention, and a piped link which required someone to click it to find, obliquely, the right answer. Sarcasm and jokes are great, except that on the internet, where no one can read your expression as your type, it doesn't go over well, and so while your response obviously entertained yourself with its cleverness, it would be mostly confusing to people who are not you, which required clarification so the OP would actually know the right answer. --

Give a man a fish... μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 04:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 69.154.180.133 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the film industry, a number of positions receive residuals for their work. As far as I can tell writers, producers, directors, actors, unit production managers, stunt coordinators, etc earn residuals on their work. I'm just looking for a complete listing of all the positions for people who could potentially receive residuals for their work.

ThanksAlibrat23 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such things are contractually negotiated. Literally anyone could earn residuals on a film, even people who had literally nothing to do with making said film (usually, these people are given "producer" credit somewhere, though there are actual producers that do actual work too). There are some standard contracts for most of the unionized labor which works on films, but it is also possible to supplant the standard contract with negotiated terms which are more favorable. --Jayron32 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there are specific positions where people typically earn residuals. For instance, a driver or a transportation coordinator are unlikely to earn residuals. I doubt a script supervisor would get them either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.33 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is not the question the OP asked. The question was about who could earn residuals.--Jayron32 17:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I AM the op. And no, it doesn't make sense that a driver or an accountant earns residuals on a production. The production company would go out of business very quickly if they did that. I'm talking about an editor, a production supervisor, a script supervisor, a sound mixer, a camera person, a special effects foreman, etc. Is it normal for the industry to pay residuals for those positions?

I am looking for a complete list of the most common positions for people who earn residuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.33 (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's no reason why absolutely everyone who works on a film couldn't get residuals, provided they were small enough. Presumably, they would be paid less cash up front, if any, so this approach might make sense if the production was short on cash. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I remember us discussing, some years ago now, about whether the catering company that delivers meals to the film crew on location, ought to get a credit at the end of the movie, and you argued that their "contribution" to the film was hardly deserving of that sort of official recognition in perpetuity. Now you seem to have mellowed with age. Would you extend royalties to the caterers? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Within your statement is the assumption that anyone getting royalties will automatically earn more than anyone getting fixed pay. This is not true. If the movie is more of a success than expected, then, yes, that is likely. But, for a flop, it's not true at all. (Here I'm assuming that the royalties would be calculated as whatever percentage would give them the same amount of income as they would have received with fixed pay, if the movie performs as expected. Perhaps they would get a slightly larger percentage than that, to cover the risk they are taking, and the delayed payment.) StuRat (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

What statement? What assumption? I asked a question: Would you extend royalties to the caterers? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Sure, there's no reason not to, and it may provide some small incentive for them to do a good job (although good catering leading to a more profitable film is questionable, but food poisoning could certainly quash any profits, or maybe not: "Wow, did you see the pain in that actresses eyes ? What acting !"). StuRat (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this question is that it is based on the assumption that there is an industry standard when it comes to financing for film production. That assumption is completely wrong. There is no standard. There may be something close to a standard within a single film production company or with a single producer, but there no such thing as an industry standard. Therefore, asking questions about a standard that doesn't exist will not result in good answers. --

™ 12:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]