document_title: Making Plans for Nigel

question_text: who sang we are making plans for nigel

question_tokens: who sang we are making plans for nigel

text: Making Plans for Nigel

text:
"Making Plans for Nigel"

Single by XTC

from the album Drums and Wires

B-side

"Bushman President"
"Pulsing Pulsing"

Released
1979 (1979)

Length
4:14

Label
Virgin

Songwriter(s)
Colin Moulding

Producer(s)
Steve Lillywhite

XTC singles chronology

"Life Begins at the Hop"
(1979)
"Making Plans for Nigel"
(1979)
"Ten Feet Tall"
(1980)

"Life Begins at the Hop"
(1979)
"Making Plans for Nigel"
(1979)
"Ten Feet Tall"
(1980)

Audio sample

file
help

text: "Making Plans for Nigel" is a song written by Colin Moulding for the English rock band XTC, released as the lead single from their 1979 album Drums and Wires. It spent 11 weeks on the UK Singles Chart, peaking at number 17.[1] The song also reached number 12 on the Canadian chart and remained on the charts there for 22 weeks.[2]

text: The lyrics are told from the point of view of parents who are certain that their son Nigel is "happy in his world", affirming that his future in British Steel "is as good as sealed", and that he "likes to speak and loves to be spoken to". As a response to the song, British Steel reportedly gathered four Sheffield employees named Nigel to talk about job satisfaction for the trade publication Steel News.[3]

text: In 2016, "Making Plans for Nigel" was ranked number 143 on Pitchfork's list of the 200 best songs of the 1970s.[3]

text: Personnel[edit]

text: As written on the record sleeve:[4]

text: XTC

text:
Andy Partridge – vocals, guitars, synthesizers
Colin Moulding – vocals, bass
Dave Gregory – guitars, keyboards, background vocals
Terry Chambers – drums, percussion, background vocals

text: Technical

text:
Steve Lillywhite – production
Hugh Padgham – engineering


document_title: Renée Estevez

question_text: who did renee estevez play on the west wing

root

text: Renée Estevez

text: Early years[edit]

text: Estevez was born in New York City, the fourth child and only daughter of artist Janet (née Templeton) and actor Martin Sheen (born Ramón Estevez). Her father is of Irish and Galician descent.[2] Her three brothers are also actors: Emilio Estevez, Ramon Estevez and Charlie Sheen (born Carlos Estevez). Her husband, Jason Thomas Federico, has been a professional golfer[3] and is a chef in New York. They met at the California Culinary Academy, where he received a degree in culinary arts and she studied pastry and baking science. They married on October 11, 1997 in a Roman Catholic wedding at the Church of Our Lady of the Scapular-St. Stephen in New York.[1]

tag: p

text: Career[edit]

text: Estevez started her acting career in 1986 starring in a CBS Schoolbreak special, Babies Having Babies.[4] Estevez has had secondary roles in films since 1986's Shattered Spirits, including the character Betty Finn in the cult favorite Heathers, and has guest starred on JAG and MacGyver. She appeared in a regular guest-starring role on The West Wing as Nancy, an office assistant in the Oval Office of President Josiah Bartlet (who is played by her real life father Martin Sheen). She has also had cameo roles in her brothers' and father's films. She also wrote for the TV series Anger Management which starred her brother, Charlie Sheen.[5]

text: Filmography[edit]

text: Films[edit]

text:
Shattered Spirits (1986) (TV) (cameo appearance)
Lethal Weapon (1987) (uncredited, director's cut)
For Keeps? (1988)
Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988)
Marked for Murder (1989) (V)
Forbidden Sun (1989)
Intruder (1989)
Heathers (1989)
Moon 44 (1990) (uncredited)
Touch and Die (1991)
Dead Silence (1991) (TV)
Guilty Until Proven Innocent (1991) (TV)
Running Wild (1992/I)
Single White Female (1992)
Deadfall (1993) (featured)
Paper Hearts (1993)
Good Girls Don't (1993)
A Matter of Justice (1993) (TV)
Endangered (1994)
Red Shoe Diaries 5: Weekend Pass (1995) (V)
Loose Women (1996) (cameo)
The War at Home (1996)
Entertaining Angels: The Dorothy Day Story (1996)
Shadow Conspiracy (1997) (cameo)
Stranger in the Kingdom (1998)
Scar City (1998) (cameo)
Addams Family Reunion (1998) (V)
No Code of Conduct (1998) (uncredited cameo)
A Murder of Crows (1999) (cameo)
Storm (1999)
Good Advice (2001) (cameo)
Out of These Rooms (2002)
Going Down (2003/I)
Milost mora (2003)
Astrothrill (2005) (V)
The Way (2010)

tag: ul

text: TV series[edit]

text:
Hallmark Hall of Fame (saison 36:The Room Upstairs) (1987) (1 episode)
MacGyver (1 episode)
CBS Schoolbreak Special (1 episode)
ABC Afterschool Special (1 episode)
Growing Pains (1 episode)
JAG (2 episodes)
The West Wing
The Division (1 episode)

text: Theater[edit]

text:
Macbeth
Murderers Anonymous


document_title: Efficient-market hypothesis

question_text: who is credited with saying markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent

text: Efficient-market hypothesis

text: Historical background[edit]

text: Historically, the EMH is preceded by Hayek's (1945) argument that markets are the most effective way of aggregating the pieces of information dispersed amongst individuals within a society. Given the ability to profit from private information, self-interested traders are motivated to acquire and act on their private information. In doing so, traders contribute to more and more efficient market prices. In the competitive limit, market prices reflect all available information and prices can only move in response to news. Thus there is a very close link between EMH and the random walk hypothesis which was discussed in 1863 by Jules Regnault, a French broker. Later another French mathematician, Louis Bachelier, applied probability theory in his 1900 PhD thesis, "The Theory of Speculation."[7] His work was largely ignored until the 1950s when financial economists began making heavy use of probability theory and statistics to model asset prices (in particular, options prices).

text: Empirically, a number of studies indicated that US stock prices and related financial series followed a random walk model in the short-term.[8] Whilst there is some predictability over the long-term, the extent to which this is due to rational time-varying risk premia as opposed to behavioral reasons is a subject of debate. Research by Alfred Cowles in the 1930s and 1940s suggested that professional investors were in general unable to outperform the market.

text: EMH anomalies and rejection of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)[edit]

text: While event studies of stock splits is consistent with the EMH (Fama, Fisher, Jensen, and Roll, 1969), other empirical analyses have found problems with the efficient-market hypothesis. Early examples include the observation that small neglected stocks and stocks with low book-market ratios (value stocks) tended to achieve abnormally high returns relative to what could be explained by the CAPM.[9][10] Further tests of portfolio efficiency by Gibbons, Ross and Shanken (1989) (GJR) led to rejections of the CAPM, although tests of efficiency inevitably run into the joint hypothesis problem (see, Roll's Critique).

text: Following GJR's results and mounting empirical evidence of EMH anomalies, academics began to move away from the CAPM towards risk factor models such as the Fama-French 3 factor model. It should be noted that these risk factor models are not properly founded on economic theory (whereas CAPM is founded on Modern Portfolio Theory), but rather, constructed with long-short portfolios in response to the observed empirical EMH anomalies. For instance, the "small-minus-big" (SMB) factor in the FF3 factor model is simply a portfolio that holds long positions on small stocks and short positions on large stocks to mimic the risks small stocks face. These risk factors are said to represent some aspect or dimension of undiversifiable systematic risk which should be compensated with higher expected returns. Additional popular risk factors include the "HML" value factor (Fama and French, 1993); "MOM" momentum factor (Carhart, 1997); "ILLIQ" liquidity factors (Amihud et al. 2002).

text: Joint hypothesis problem[edit]

text: When testing the EMH one inevitably finds either 1) that the market is inefficient, or 2) that the asset pricing model used to test market efficiency is incorrect. Hence tests of market efficiency run into this joint hypothesis problem. For instance, early tests of market efficiency used the CAPM, which could be an incomplete model of asset prices; test results on market efficiency would thus be inconclusive.

text: Formally, the joint hypothesis problem says that it is never possible to test (sufficiently, to prove or disprove) market efficiency. A test of market efficiency must include some model for how prices may be set efficiently. Then actual prices can be examined to see whether this holds true. Usually this fails and then this supports the case that markets are not efficient. The joint hypothesis problem says that, when this happens, it shows that the model is not complete. There are some factors that are not accounted for.

text: Impacts[edit]

text: The efficient-market hypothesis emerged as a prominent theory in the mid-1960s. Paul Samuelson had begun to circulate Bachelier's work among economists. In 1964 Bachelier's dissertation along with the empirical studies mentioned above were published in an anthology edited by Paul Cootner.[11] In 1965, Eugene Fama published his dissertation arguing for the random walk hypothesis.[12] Also, Samuelson published a proof showing that if the market is efficient prices will show random-walk behavior.[13] This is often cited in support of the efficient-market theory, by the method of affirming the consequent,[14][15] however in that same paper, Samuelson warns against such backward reasoning, saying "From a nonempirical base of axioms you never get empirical results."[16] In 1970, Fama published a review of both the theory and the evidence for the hypothesis. The paper extended and refined the theory, included the definitions for three forms of financial market efficiency: weak, semi-strong and strong (see below).[17]

text: It has been argued that the stock market is "micro efficient" but not "macro efficient". The main proponent of this view was Samuelson, who asserted that the EMH is much better suited for individual stocks than it is for the aggregate stock market. Research based on regression and scatter diagrams has strongly supported Samuelson's dictum.[18] This result is also the theoretical justification for the forecasting of broad economic trends, which is provided by a variety of groups including non-profit groups as well as by for-profit private institutions (such as brokerage houses[19] and consulting companies[20]).

text: Further to this evidence that the UK stock market is weak-form efficient, other studies of capital markets have pointed toward their being semi-strong-form efficient. A study by Khan of the grain futures market indicated semi-strong form efficiency following the release of large trader position information (Khan, 1986). Studies by Firth (1976, 1979, and 1980) in the United Kingdom have compared the share prices existing after a takeover announcement with the bid offer. Firth found that the share prices were fully and instantaneously adjusted to their correct levels, thus concluding that the UK stock market was semi-strong-form efficient. However, the market's ability to efficiently respond to a short term, widely publicized event such as a takeover announcement does not necessarily prove market efficiency related to other more long term, amorphous factors. David Dreman has criticized the evidence provided by this instant "efficient" response, pointing out that an immediate response is not necessarily efficient, and that the long-term performance of the stock in response to certain movements are better indications.

text: Theoretical background[edit]

text: Beyond the normal utility maximizing agents, the efficient-market hypothesis requires that agents have rational expectations; that on average the population is correct (even if no one person is) and whenever new relevant information appears, the agents update their expectations appropriately. Note that it is not required that the agents be rational. EMH allows that when faced with new information, some investors may overreact and some may underreact. All that is required by the EMH is that investors' reactions be random and follow a normal distribution pattern so that the net effect on market prices cannot be reliably exploited to make an abnormal profit, especially when considering transaction costs (including commissions and spreads). Thus, any one person can be wrong about the market—indeed, everyone can be—but the market as a whole is always right. There are three common forms in which the efficient-market hypothesis is commonly stated—weak-form efficiency, semi-strong-form efficiency and strong-form efficiency, each of which has different implications for how markets work.

text: Weak-form efficiency[edit]

text: In weak-form efficiency, future prices cannot be predicted by analyzing prices from the past. Excess returns cannot be earned in the long run by using investment strategies based on historical share prices or other historical data. Technical analysis techniques will not be able to consistently produce excess returns, though some forms of fundamental analysis may still provide excess returns. Share prices exhibit no serial dependencies, meaning that there are no "patterns" to asset prices. This implies that future price movements are determined entirely by information not contained in the price series. Hence, prices must follow a random walk. This 'soft' EMH does not require that prices remain at or near equilibrium, but only that market participants not be able to systematically profit from market 'inefficiencies'. However, while EMH predicts that all price movement (in the absence of change in fundamental information) is random (i.e., non-trending), many studies have shown a marked tendency for the stock markets to trend over time periods of weeks or longer[21] and that, moreover, there is a positive correlation between degree of trending and length of time period studied (but note that over long time periods, the trending is sinusoidal in appearance).[22] Various explanations for such large and apparently non-random price movements have been promulgated.

text: There is a vast literature in academic finance dealing with the momentum effect identified by Jegadeesh and Titman.[23][24] Stocks that have performed relatively well (poorly) over the past 3 to 12 months continue to do well (poorly) over the next 3 to 12 months. The momentum strategy is long recent winners and shorts recent losers, and produces positive risk-adjusted average returns. Being simply based on past stock returns, the momentum effect produces strong evidence against weak-form market efficiency, and has been observed in the stock returns of most countries, in industry returns, and in national equity market indices. Moreover, Fama has accepted that momentum is the premier anomaly[25][26]

text: The problem of algorithmically constructing prices which reflect all available information has been studied extensively in the field of computer science.[27][28]

text: A novel approach for testing the weak form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis is using quantifers derived from Information Theory. In this line, Zunino et al.[29] found that informational efficiency is related to market size and the stage of development of the economy. Using a similar technique, Bariviera et al.[30] uncover the impact of important economic events on informational efficiency. The methodology proposed by econophysicists Zunino, Bariviera and coauthors is new and alternative to usual econometric techniques, and is able to detect changes in the stochastic and or chaotic underlying dynamics of prices time series.

text: Semi-strong-form efficiency[edit]

text: In semi-strong-form efficiency, it is implied that share prices adjust to publicly available new information very rapidly and in an unbiased fashion, such that no excess returns can be earned by trading on that information. Semi-strong-form efficiency implies that neither fundamental analysis nor technical analysis techniques will be able to reliably produce excess returns. To test for semi-strong-form efficiency, the adjustments to previously unknown news must be of a reasonable size and must be instantaneous. To test for this, consistent upward or downward adjustments after the initial change must be looked for. If there are any such adjustments it would suggest that investors had interpreted the information in a biased fashion and hence in an inefficient manner.

text: Strong-form efficiency[edit]

text: In strong-form efficiency, share prices reflect all information, public and private, and no one can earn excess returns. If there are legal barriers to private information becoming public, as with insider trading laws, strong-form efficiency is impossible, except in the case where the laws are universally ignored. To test for strong-form efficiency, a market needs to exist where investors cannot consistently earn excess returns over a long period of time. Even if some money managers are consistently observed to beat the market, no refutation even of strong-form efficiency follows: with hundreds of thousands of fund managers worldwide, even a normal distribution of returns (as efficiency predicts) should be expected to produce a few dozen "star" performers.

text: Criticism and behavioral finance[edit]

text: Investors, including the likes of Warren Buffett,[33] and researchers have disputed the efficient-market hypothesis both empirically and theoretically. Behavioral economists attribute the imperfections in financial markets to a combination of cognitive biases such as overconfidence, overreaction, representative bias, information bias, and various other predictable human errors in reasoning and information processing. These have been researched by psychologists such as Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, Richard Thaler, and Paul Slovic. These errors in reasoning lead most investors to avoid value stocks and buy growth stocks at expensive prices, which allow those who reason correctly to profit from bargains in neglected value stocks and the overreacted selling of growth stocks.[citation needed] Investors prefer riskier funds in spring and safer funds in autumn.[34]

text: Empirical evidence has been mixed, but has generally not supported strong forms of the efficient-market hypothesis[9][10][35] According to Dreman and Berry, in a 1995 paper, low P/E stocks have greater returns.[36] In an earlier paper Dreman also refuted the assertion by Ray Ball that these higher returns could be attributed to higher beta,[37] whose research had been accepted by efficient market theorists as explaining the anomaly[38] in neat accordance with modern portfolio theory.

text: One can identify "losers" as stocks that have had poor returns over some number of past years. "Winners" would be those stocks that had high returns over a similar period. The main result of one such study is that losers have much higher average returns than winners over the following period of the same number of years.[39] A later study showed that beta (β) cannot account for this difference in average returns.[40] This tendency of returns to reverse over long horizons (i.e., losers become winners) is yet another contradiction of EMH. Losers would have to have much higher betas than winners in order to justify the return difference. The study showed that the beta difference required to save the EMH is just not there. It is important to note, however, that these studies were compiled in the mid-1980s and may not be reflective of more modern trends of efficiency, which often rely around extensive internet and computer based information analytics.

text: Economic bubbles and irrational exuberance[edit]

text: Speculative economic bubbles are an obvious anomaly, in that the market often appears to be driven by buyers operating on escalating market sentiment/ irrational exuberance, who take little notice of underlying value. These bubbles are typically followed by an overreaction of frantic selling, allowing shrewd investors to buy stocks at bargain prices. Rational investors have difficulty profiting by shorting irrational bubbles because, in the words of a famous saying attributed to John Maynard Keynes, "Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."[41] Sudden market crashes as happened on Black Monday in 1987 are mysterious from the perspective of efficient markets, but allowed as a rare statistical event under the weak-form of EMH. Benoit Mandelbrot has argued that market bubbles are not anomalous but rather characteristic of price dynamics described by power laws such as Pareto, Zipf[42] or Tracy-Widom[43] combined with persistence in price change trends.[44]

text: Burton Malkiel has warned that certain emerging markets such as China are not empirically efficient; that the Shanghai and Shenzhen markets, unlike markets in United States, exhibit considerable serial correlation (price trends), non-random walk, and evidence of manipulation.[45] Foye, Mramor, and Pahor (2013) report similar findings for Eastern Europe's emerging stock markets [46]

text: Behavioral psychology[edit]

text: Behavioral psychology approaches to stock market trading are among some of the more promising[citation needed] alternatives to EMH (and some[which?] investment strategies seek to exploit exactly such inefficiencies). But Nobel Laureate co-founder of the programme Daniel Kahneman —announced his skepticism of investors beating the market: "They're [investors] just not going to do it [beat the market]. It's just not going to happen."[47] Indeed, defenders of EMH maintain that Behavioral Finance strengthens the case for EMH in that it highlights biases in individuals and committees and not competitive markets. For example, one prominent finding in Behaviorial Finance is that individuals employ hyperbolic discounting. It is demonstrably true that bonds, mortgages, annuities and other similar financial instruments subject to competitive market forces do not. Any manifestation of hyperbolic discounting in the pricing of these obligations would invite arbitrage thereby quickly eliminating any vestige of individual biases. Similarly, diversification, derivative securities and other hedging strategies assuage if not eliminate potential mispricings from the severe risk-intolerance (loss aversion) of individuals underscored by behavioral finance. On the other hand, economists, behaviorial psychologists and mutual fund managers are drawn from the human population and are therefore subject to the biases that behavioralists showcase. By contrast, the price signals in markets are far less subject to individual biases highlighted by the Behavioral Finance programme. Richard Thaler has started a fund based on his research on cognitive biases. In a 2008 report he identified complexity and herd behavior as central to the global financial crisis of 2008.[48]

text: Further empirical work has highlighted the impact transaction costs have on the concept of market efficiency, with much evidence suggesting that any anomalies pertaining to market inefficiencies are the result of a cost benefit analysis made by those willing to incur the cost of acquiring the valuable information in order to trade on it. Additionally the concept of liquidity is a critical component to capturing "inefficiencies" in tests for abnormal returns. Any test of this proposition faces the joint hypothesis problem, where it is impossible to ever test for market efficiency, since to do so requires the use of a measuring stick against which abnormal returns are compared —one cannot know if the market is efficient if one does not know if a model correctly stipulates the required rate of return. Consequently, a situation arises where either the asset pricing model is incorrect or the market is inefficient, but one has no way of knowing which is the case.[citation needed]

text: The performance of stock markets is correlated with the amount of sunshine in the city where the main exchange is located.[49]

text: A key work on random walk was done in the late 1980s by Profs. Andrew Lo and Craig MacKinlay; they effectively argue that a random walk does not exist, nor ever has.[50] Their paper took almost two years to be accepted by academia and in 1999 they published "A Non-random Walk Down Wall St." which collects their research papers on the topic up to that time.

text: EMH as Tautology[edit]

text: In his book The Reformation in Economics the economist Philip Pilkington has argued that the EMH is actually a tautology masking as a theory [51]. He argues that the theory rests on the assertion that the average investor will not beat the market average. But this is obviously a flat tautology as the average investor will always track the market average by construction.

text: When formulated with slightly more clarity the argument states that all investors will, over time, tend toward the average. According to Pilkington this claim is less tautological than the claim that the average investor will not beat the market average but has nevertheless been implicitly constructed in a similar manner. In order to show this he cites the fact that EMH proponents will label anyone who beats the market over a period of time "lucky". But Pilkington points out that neither the EMH proponents nor anyone else have any criteria by which to distinguish luck from skill.

text: This leads to the theory falling back into tautology. It states that all investors will tend back to the market average over time and those that do not conform to this are simply lucky. The final part of the argument is entirely arbitrary as "luck" cannot be proved (and seems unlikely). But this assertion of luckiness ensures that, by definition, no investor can fall outside the theory because if they do they are arbitrarily reassigned by the theory to be of no importance. Pilkington argues that this argument is a logical absurdity and could be applied to anyone skilled in their field. He writes:

text: In order for the EMH defence to make sense, [its proponents] would have to show that [the] small number of investors that beat the market in the long-run are not doing so because they are skilled but rather that they are lucky. How would they show this? Frankly, it is impossible to prove either way. But it strikes me as a very silly argument. We could just as easily apply it to [highly skilled] poker players. We could say "Oh, they are not really skilled, they are just lucky. They are just a statistical anomaly." Moving on from this, we could say this about anything and everything. We could say this about professional football players, master chefs and seminal guitar players. None of these people, by EMH logic, should be seen as skilled. Rather, they are just getting lucky over and over again. The professional football players are just getting lucky every time they play well; the master chef is getting lucky every time he cooks a fabulous meal; and the seminal guitar player is just fortunate that his hands move in the way that they do. At this point, the reader will appreciate the vacuity of the EMH argument. [52]

text: View of some economists[edit]

text: Economists Matthew Bishop and Michael Green claim that full acceptance of the hypothesis goes against the thinking of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, who both believed irrational behavior had a real impact on the markets.[53]

text: Economist John Quiggin has claimed that "Bitcoin is perhaps the finest example of a pure bubble", and that it provides a conclusive refutation of EMH.[54] While other assets used as currency (such as gold, tobacco) have value independent of people's willingness to accept them as payment, Quiggin argues that "in the case of Bitcoin there is no source of value whatsoever" and that:

text: Since Bitcoins do not generate any actual earnings, they must appreciate in value to ensure that people are willing to hold them. But an endless appreciation, with no flow of earnings or liquidation value, is precisely the kind of bubble the EMH says can’t happen.

text: In 2013, Kim Man Lui pointed out that there is difference of performance between experienced and novice traders in a controlled experiment. If the market really walks randomly, there should be no difference between these two kinds of traders. However, traders who are more knowledgeable on technical analysis significantly outperform those who are less knowledgeable.[55]

text: Tshilidzi Marwala surmised that artificial intelligence influences the applicability of the theory of the efficient market hypothesis in that the more artificial intelligence infused computer traders there are in the markets as traders the more efficient the markets become.[56][57][58]

text: Warren Buffett has also argued against EMH, most notably in his 1984 presentation The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville, saying the preponderance of value investors among the world's best money managers rebuts the claim of EMH proponents that luck is the reason some investors appear more successful than others.[59] As Malkiel[60] has shown, over the 30 years (to 1996) more than two-thirds of professional portfolio managers have been outperformed by the S&P 500 Index (and, more to the point, there is little correlation between those who outperform in one year and those who outperform in the next).

text: Late 2000s financial crisis[edit]

text: The financial crisis of 2007–08 led to renewed scrutiny and criticism of the hypothesis.[61] Market strategist Jeremy Grantham stated flatly that the EMH was responsible for the current financial crisis, claiming that belief in the hypothesis caused financial leaders to have a "chronic underestimation of the dangers of asset bubbles breaking".[4] Noted financial journalist Roger Lowenstein blasted the theory, declaring "The upside of the current Great Recession is that it could drive a stake through the heart of the academic nostrum known as the efficient-market hypothesis."[5] Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker chimed in, saying it's "clear that among the causes of the recent financial crisis was an unjustified faith in rational expectations [and] market efficiencies."[62] "By 2007–2009, you had to be a fanatic to believe in the literal truth of the EMH", noted one financial analyst.[63]

text: At the International Organization of Securities Commissions annual conference, held in June 2009, the hypothesis took center stage. Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, dismissed the hypothesis as being a useless way to examine how markets function in reality. Paul McCulley, managing director of PIMCO, was less extreme in his criticism, saying that the hypothesis had not failed, but was "seriously flawed" in its neglect of human nature.[64][65]

text: The financial crisis led Richard Posner, a prominent judge, University of Chicago law professor, and innovator in the field of Law and Economics, to back away from the hypothesis and express some degree of belief in Keynesian economics. Posner accused some of his Chicago School colleagues of being "asleep at the switch", saying that "the movement to deregulate the financial industry went too far by exaggerating the resilience—the self healing powers—of laissez-faire capitalism."[66] Others, such as Fama, said that the hypothesis held up well during the crisis and that the markets were a casualty of the recession, not the cause of it. Despite this, Fama has conceded that "poorly informed investors could theoretically lead the market astray" and that stock prices could become "somewhat irrational" as a result.[67]

text: Critics have suggested that financial institutions and corporations have been able to reduce the efficiency of financial markets by creating private information and reducing the accuracy of conventional disclosures, and by developing new and complex products which are challenging for most market participants to evaluate and correctly price.[68][69]

text: Efficient markets applied in securities class action litigation[edit]

text: The theory of efficient markets has been practically applied in the field of Securities Class Action Litigation. Efficient market theory, in conjunction with "Fraud on the Market Theory," has been used in Securities Class Action Litigation to both justify and as mechanism for the calculation of damages.[70] In the Supreme Court Case, Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-317, the use of efficient market theory in supporting securities class action litigation was affirmed. Supreme Court Justice Roberts wrote that "the court’s ruling was consistent with the ruling in "Basic" because it allows "direct evidence when such evidence is available” instead of relying exclusively on the efficient markets theory."[71]


document_title: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film)

question_text: who played wilbur wonka in charlie and the chocolate factory

text: Plot

text: Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore) is a kind and loving boy living in poverty with his parents (Noah Taylor and Helena Bonham Carter) and four bedridden grandparents. They all rely on his father for income, employed at a toothpaste factory, responsible for putting the caps on the tubes. However, Mr. Bucket eventually loses his job because the factory replaced him with a machine that puts the caps on the tubes. Down the street is Willy Wonka's (Johnny Depp) chocolate factory, which reopened after industrial espionage forced him into seclusion and sacking his employees. Charlie's Grandpa Joe (David Kelly) worked for Wonka before the termination.

text: Wonka announces a contest whereby children that find Golden Tickets hidden in five Wonka bars will be given a tour of the factory and a lifetime supply of chocolate, and one a chance to be presented with an unknown grand prize. Four tickets are quickly found: the greedy and gluttonous Augustus Gloop (Philip Wiegratz) from Düsseldorf; the spoiled and rotten Veruca Salt (Julia Winter) from Buckinghamshire; the competitive and boastful Violet Beauregarde (AnnaSophia Robb) from Atlanta; and the arrogant and aggressive Mike Teavee (Jordan Fry) from Denver. Charlie hopes to find a ticket but his chances are small as money is tight, and the best has to be made of his annual birthday present of one Wonka bar and a bar bought by Grandpa Joe's money, both of which yield no tickets. All hope is seemingly crushed when the last ticket is apparently claimed in Russia. Charlie, on finding some money in the street, just intends to enjoy one chocolate bar when news breaks that the Russian ticket was fake. To Charlie's surprise, he finds the bar he just bought has the real last Golden Ticket. Bystanders attempt to separate him from it, only for the shopkeeper (Oscar James) to see that he keeps the ticket and gets back home with it.

text: When Grandpa Joe sees the ticket, he jumps out of bed and dances with joy. He offers to accompany Charlie on the tour, but Charlie explains how he was offered money for the ticket and intends to sell it. Grandpa George (David Morris) reminds Charlie that money is far more common than the tickets, and convinces Charlie to keep it. Upon meeting him on the day of the tour, the visitors find Wonka to be peculiar, lonely and acting odd at the mention of "parents". The tour shows how the fantastical factory operates under the efforts of the short humans called Oompa-Loompas. The other four children succumb to temptation, and end up being caught in the factory workings and have to be safely recovered by the Oompa-Loompas, albeit in worse shape than at the start of the tour: Augustus falls into a river of chocolate and is sucked up by a pipe before being rescued from the fudge processing center; Violet expands into an oversized blueberry when she tries an experimental piece of chewing gum despite Wonka's warning; Veruca is thrown away as a "bad nut" by trained squirrels down the garbage chute; and Mike is shrunk down to a few inches in height after being the first person transported by Wonka's new television advertising invention. During the tour, Wonka has flashbacks from his childhood where he remembers that he had a troubled relationship with his father, Wilbur. Due to his father being a dentist he was forbidden from candy consumption, but after managing to sneak a taste, he became hooked and later ran away from home to live his dream. He then returned several days later to find his father and home completely gone.

text: When the other children leave the factory, Augustus is covered in chocolate, Violet is still blue all over but no longer a blueberry and much more flexible, Veruca and her father are covered in garbage, and Mike is taller than his father and thin as paper after being stretched with the "taffy puller".

text: Upon arriving home in the Great Glass Elevator, Charlie is congratulated as the only remaining child and the winner of the grand prize: Wonka's heir to the factory. Unfortunately, Wonka stipulates that Charlie's family has to stay behind; therefore, to Wonka's dismay, Charlie rejects the offer. Wonka then sadly flies back to the factory in his great glass elevator, leaving a hole in the roof.

text: Some days later, Wonka's candies are selling poorly, and he comes to associate his unhappiness with the financial state of his company, so he makes an effort to find Charlie. After discovering Wonka`s troubled relationship, Charlie helps him locate his father. When they visit, it appears that despite his strict avoidance of candy, the dentist has followed Willy's success and they reconcile. Wonka allows Charlie's family to move into the factory while he and Charlie plan new product lines to produce.

text: Cast

text:
Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka

Blair Dunlop as Young Willy Wonka

Freddie Highmore as Charlie Bucket
David Kelly as Grandpa Joe
Deep Roy as Oompa-Loompas
AnnaSophia Robb as Violet Beauregarde
Philip Wiegratz as Augustus Gloop
Julia Winter as Veruca Salt
Jordan Fry as Mike Teavee
Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Bucket
Noah Taylor as Mr. Bucket
Missi Pyle as Mrs. Beauregarde
James Fox as Mr. Salt
Adam Godley as Mr. Teavee
Franziska Troegner as Mrs. Gloop
Christopher Lee as Dr. Wilbur Wonka
Liz Smith as Grandma Georgina
Eileen Essell as Grandma Josephine
David Morris as Grandpa George
Geoffrey Holder as the Narrator
Nitin Ganatra as Prince Pondicherry
Shelley Conn as Princess Pondicherry
Oscar James as Shopkeeper
Philip Philmar as Arthur Slugworth
Criss Cresswell as Prodnose
Tony Kirwood as Ficklegruber
Harry Taylor as Mr. Gloop
Francesca Hunt as Mrs. Salt
Todd Boyce as the Newscaster

text: Production

text: Development

text: Author Roald Dahl disapproved of the 1971 film adaptation and declined the film rights to produce the sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator.[5] Warner Bros. and Brillstein-Grey Entertainment entered discussions with the Dahl estate in 1991, hoping to purchase the rights to produce another film version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The purchase was finalized in 1998,[6] with Dahl's widow, Felicity ("Liccy"), and daughter, Lucy, receiving total artistic control and final privilege on the choices of actors, directors and writers. The Dahl Estate's subsequent protection of the source material was the main reason that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had languished in development hell since the 1990s.[7][8]

text: Scott Frank was hired to write the screenplay in February 1999, after approaching Warner Bros. for the job.[8] Frank, a recent Oscar nominee for the R-rated crime film Out of Sight, wanted to work on a film that his children could enjoy.[9][10][11] As an enthusiastic fan of the book, he intended to remain more truthful to Dahl's vision than the 1971 film had been.[8] Nicolas Cage was under discussions for Willy Wonka, but lost interest.[5][12] Gary Ross signed to direct in February 2000,[13] which resulted in Frank completing two drafts of the screenplay,[11] before leaving with Ross in September 2001.[14] Both Warner Bros. and the Dahl Estate wanted Frank to stay on the project, but he faced scheduling conflicts and contractual obligations with Minority Report (2002) and The Lookout (2007).[11]

text: Rob Minkoff entered negotiations to take the director's position in October 2001,[15] and Gwyn Lurie was hired to start from scratch on a new script in February 2002. Lurie said she would adapt the original book and ignore the 1971 film adaptation. Dahl's estate championed Lurie after being impressed with her work on another Dahl adaptation, a live-action adaptation of The BFG, for Paramount Pictures, which was never made (Paramount distributed the earlier 1971 film version of Charlie, and later sold the rights to WB).[16] In April 2002, Martin Scorsese was involved with the film, albeit briefly, but opted to direct The Aviator instead.[5][12] Warner Bros. president Alan F. Horn wanted Tom Shadyac to direct Jim Carrey as Willy Wonka, believing the duo could make Charlie and the Chocolate Factory relevant to mainstream audiences, but Liccy Dahl opposed this.[7]

text: Pre-production

text: After receiving enthusiastic approval from the Dahl Estate, Warner Bros. hired Tim Burton to direct in May 2003.[6] Burton compared the project's languishing development to Batman (1989), which he directed, in how there had been varied creative efforts with both films. He said, "Scott Frank's version was the best, probably the clearest, and the most interesting, but they had abandoned that."[17] Liccy Dahl commented that Burton was the first and only director the estate was happy with. He had previously produced another of the author's adaptations with James and the Giant Peach (1996), and, like Roald and Liccy, disliked the 1971 film because it strayed from the book's storyline.[7]

text:
"As a child, Dahl was the author who I connected to the most. He got the idea of writing a mixture of light and darkness, and not speaking down to kids, and the kind of politically incorrect humor that kids get. I've always liked that, and it's shaped everything I've felt that I've done."

Tim Burton[17]

tag: div

text: During pre-production Burton visited Dahl's former home in the Buckinghamshire village of Great Missenden. Liccy Dahl remembers Burton entering Dahl's famed writing shed and saying, "This is the Buckets' house!" and thinking to herself, "Thank God, somebody gets it." Liccy also showed Burton the original handwritten manuscripts, which Burton discovered were more politically incorrect than the published book. The manuscripts included a child named Herpes, after the sexually transmitted disease.[17] Burton immediately thought of Johnny Depp for the role of Willy Wonka, who in August 2003 joined the film, his fourth collaboration with the director.[18]

text: Lurie's script received a rewrite by Pamela Pettler, who worked with Burton on Corpse Bride, but the director hired Big Fish screenwriter John August in December 2003 to start from scratch.[12] Both August and Burton were fans of the book since their childhoods.[17] August first read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when he was eight years old, and subsequently sent Dahl a fan letter. He did not see the 1971 film prior to his hiring, which Burton believed would be fundamental in having August stay closer to the book.[19] The writer updated the Mike Teavee character into an obsessive video game player, as compared to the novel, in which he fantasized about violent crime films. The characters Arthur Slugworth and Prodnose were reduced to brief cameo appearances, while Mr. Beauregarde was entirely omitted.[20]

text: Burton and August also worked together in creating Wilbur Wonka, Willy's domineering dentist father. Burton thought the paternal character would help explain Willy Wonka himself and that otherwise he would be "just a weird guy".[3] The element of an estranged father-son relationship had previously appeared in Big Fish, similarly directed by Burton and written by August. Warner Bros. and the director held differences over the characterizations of Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka. The studio wanted to entirely delete Mr. Bucket and make Willy Wonka the idyllic father figure Charlie had longed for his entire life. Burton believed that Wonka would not be a good father, finding the character similar to a recluse.[21] Burton said, "In some ways, he's more screwed up than the kids." Warner Bros. also wanted Charlie to be a whiz kid, but Burton resisted the characterization. He wanted Charlie to be an average child who would be in the background and not get in trouble.[17]

text: Casting

text: Prior to Burton's involvement, Warner Bros. considered or discussed Willy Wonka with Bill Murray, Christopher Walken, Steve Martin, Robin Williams, Nicolas Cage, Jim Carrey, Michael Keaton, Robert De Niro, Brad Pitt, Will Smith, Mike Myers, Ben Stiller, Leslie Nielsen, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Patrick Stewart, and Adam Sandler.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Dustin Hoffman and Marilyn Manson reportedly wanted the role as well.[24][30] Pitt's production company, Plan B Entertainment, however, stayed on to co-finance the film with Warner Bros.[7] Coincidentally, Cleese, Idle and Palin (as well as the other three Monty Python members) had all previously expressed interest in playing Wonka in the 1971 film adaptation.[29] Johnny Depp was the only actor Burton considered for the role,[17] although Dwayne Johnson was Burton's second choice in case Depp was unavailable.[31] Depp signed on without reading the script under the intention of going with a completely different approach than what Gene Wilder did in the 1971 film adaptation.[32] Depp said regardless of the original film, Gene Wilder's characterization of Willy Wonka stood out as a unique portrayal.[7]

text: Depp and Burton derived their Willy Wonka from children's television show hosts such as Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo), Fred Rogers, and Al Lewis from The Uncle Al Show, and Depp also took inspiration from various game show hosts.[33] Burton recalled from his childhood that the characters were bizarre but left lasting impressions. He said, "It was kind of a strange amalgamation of these weird children's TV show hosts."[17] Depp based Wonka's look (over-exaggerated bob cut and sunglasses) on Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour.[34]

text: Comparisons were drawn between Willy Wonka and Michael Jackson. Burton disagreed with the comparisons and said Jackson, unlike Wonka, liked children.[21] Depp said the similarities with Jackson never occurred to him. Instead, he compared Wonka to Howard Hughes due to his "reclusive, germaphobe, controlling" nature.[33] Burton agreed with the similarity to Hughes. He also cited Charles Foster Kane from Citizen Kane as an inspiration for Wonka, as Kane is "somebody who was brilliant but then was traumatized and then retreats into their own world".[17] Depp wanted to sport prosthetic makeup for the part and have a long, elongated nose, but Burton believed it would be too outrageous. During production, Gene Wilder, in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, accused the filmmakers of only remaking the 1971 film for the purpose of money. Depp said he was disappointed by Wilder's comment, and responded that the film was not a remake, but a new adaptation of Dahl's 1964 book.[3]

text: The casting calls for Charlie Bucket, Violet Beauregarde, Veruca Salt, and Mike Teavee took place in the United States and United Kingdom, while Augustus Gloop's casting took place in Germany. Burton said he sought actors "who had something of the character in them", and found Mike Teavee the hardest character to cast.[17] Burton was finding trouble casting Charlie, until Depp, who had worked with Freddie Highmore on Finding Neverland, suggested Highmore for the part.[5] Highmore had already read the book before, but decided to read it once more prior to auditioning.[35] The actor did not see the original film adaptation, and chose not to see it until after Burton's production, so his portrayal would not be influenced.[36]

text: Before Adam Godley was officially cast as Mr. Teavee, Dan Castellaneta, Tim Allen, Ed O'Neill, Bob Saget, and Ray Romano were all considered for the role.[22]

text: It has been rumored that Gregory Peck was considered for the role of Grandpa Joe.[37] Other actors that were considered for Grandpa Joe included Richard Attenborough, Kirk Douglas, Albert Finney, Anthony Hopkins, Paul Newman, Max von Sydow, David Warner, Christopher Lloyd and Peter Ustinov.[38]

text: Filming

text: Principal photography for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory started on June 21, 2004[12] at Pinewood Studios in England.[39] Director Tim Burton and composer Danny Elfman found filming somewhat difficult because they were simultaneously working on Corpse Bride.[21] The Wonka Factory exterior was coincidentally constructed on the same backlot Burton had used for Gotham City in Batman (1989).[17] The ceremonial scene required 500 local extras.[7] The Chocolate Room/River setpiece filled Pinewood's 007 Stage. As a consequence of British Equity rules, which state that children can only work four and a half hours a day, filming for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory took six months, ending in December 2004.[17]

text: Design

text: The architecture of the Bucket family home was influenced by Burton's visit to Roald Dahl's writing hut. Like the book, the film has a "timeless" setting and is not set in a specific country. "We've tried not to pinpoint it to any place," production designer Alex McDowell explained. "The cars, in fact, drive down the middle of the road."[7] The town, whose design was shaped by the black and white urban photography of Bill Brandt, as well as Pittsburgh and Northern England, is arranged like a medieval village, with Wonka's estate on top and the Bucket shack below.[7] The filmmakers also used fascist architecture for Wonka's factory exterior, and designed most of the sets on 360° sound stages, similar to cycloramas. Burton biographer Mark Salisbury wrote that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory "melds 1950s and '70s visuals with a futuristic sensibility that seems straight out of a 1960s sense of the future."[17] The "TV Room" was patterned after photographs from the films 2001: A Space Odyssey, Danger: Diabolik, and THX 1138. Danger Diabolik also served as inspiration for the Nut Room and Inventing Room.[17]

text: Visual effects

text: Tim Burton avoided using too many digital effects because he wanted the younger actors to feel as if they were working in a realistic environment.[40] As a result, forced perspective techniques, oversized props and scale models were used to avoid computer-generated imagery (CGI).[17] Deep Roy was cast to play the Oompa-Loompas based on his previous collaborations with Burton on Planet of the Apes and Big Fish. The actor was able to play various Oompa-Loompas using split screen photography, digital and front projection effects.[3] "Tim told me that the Oompa-Loompas were strictly programmed, like robots — all they do is work, work, work," Roy commented. "So when it comes time to dance, they're like a regiment; they do the same steps."[41]

text: A practical method was considered for the scene in which Violet Beauregarde turns blue and swells up into a giant 10-foot blueberry. A suit with an air hose was considered at one point for the beginnings of the swelling scene, before the decision was made to do the entire transformation in CGI. The visual effects house Cinesite was recruited for this assignment. In some shots of AnnaSophia Robb's head, a facial prosthetic was worn to give the impression that her cheeks had swelled up as well. Because this decision was made late in the film's production, any traces of Violet's blueberry scene were omitted from trailers or promotional material.

text: Rather than rely on CGI, Burton wanted the 40 squirrels in the Nut Room to be real. The animals were trained every day for 10 weeks before filming commenced. They began their coaching while newborns, fed by bottles to form relationships with human trainers. The squirrels were each taught how to sit upon a little blue bar stool, tap and then open a walnut, and deposit its meat onto a conveyor belt.[7] "Ultimately, the scene was supplemented by CGI and animatronics," Burton said, "but for the close-ups and the main action, they're the real thing."[17] Wonka's Viking boat for the Chocolate River sequence floats down a realistic river filled with 192,000 gallons of faux melted chocolate.[42] "Having seen the first film, we wanted to make the chocolate river look edible," McDowell said. "In the first film, it's so distasteful." The production first considered a CGI river, but Burton was impressed with the artificial substance when he saw how it clung to the boat's oars. Nine shades of chocolate were tested before Burton settled on the proper hue.[7]

text: Music

text: The original music score was written by Danny Elfman, a frequent collaborator with director Tim Burton. Elfman's score is based around three primary themes: a gentle family theme for the Buckets, generally set in upper woodwinds; a mystical, string-driven waltz for Willy Wonka; and a hyper-upbeat factory theme for full orchestra, Elfman's homemade synthesizer samples and the diminutive chanting voices of the Oompa-Loompas.[43]

text: Elfman also wrote and performed the vocals for four songs, with pitch changes and modulations to represent different singers.[44] The lyrics to the Oompa-Loompa songs are adapted from the original book, and are thus credited to Roald Dahl.[43] Following Burton's suggestion, each song in the score is designed to reflect a different archetype.[44] "Wonka's Welcome Song" is a maddeningly cheerful theme park ditty, "Augustus Gloop" a Bollywood spectacle (per Deep Roy's suggestion),[41] "Violet Beauregarde" is 1970s funk, "Veruca Salt" is 1960s bubblegum pop / psychedelic pop, and "Mike Teavee" is a tribute to late 1970s hard rock (such as Queen) and early 1980s hair bands.[43][44]

text: The original motion picture soundtrack was released on July 12, 2005 by Warner Bros. Records.

text: Release

text: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had its premiere at the Grauman's Chinese Theatre, on July 10, 2005, where money for the Make-a-Wish Foundation was raised.[45] The film was released in the United States on July 15, 2005 in 3,770 theaters[46] (including IMAX theaters).[47]

text: Marketing

text: Early in the development of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in February 2000, Warner Bros. announced their intention of marketing the film[13] with a Broadway theatre musical after release. The studio reiterated their interest in May 2003,[6] however, the idea was postponed by the time filming began in June 2004.[7] The main tie-in for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory focused on The Willy Wonka Candy Company, a division of Nestlé. A small range of Wonka Bars were launched, utilizing their prominence in the film.[48] The release of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory also rekindled public interest in Roald Dahl's 1964 book, and appeared on the New York Times Best Seller list from July 3 to October 23, 2005.[49][50]

text: Box office

text: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory earned $56,178,450 in its opening weekend,[46] the fifth-highest opening weekend gross for 2005, and stayed at #1 for two weeks.[51] The film eventually grossed $206,459,076 in US totals and $268,509,687 in foreign countries, coming to a worldwide total of $474,968,763. It was the fifty-eighth highest-grossing film of all time when released,[46] as well as seventh-highest for the US[51] and eighth-highest worldwide for the year of 2005.[52]

text: Critical response

text: On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an approval rating of 83% based on 222 reviews, with an average rating 7.2/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Closer to the source material than 1971's Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is for people who like their Chocolate visually appealing and dark."[53] On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 72 out of 100, based on 40 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[54] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale.[55]

text: Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly praised Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, writing "Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka may be a stone freak, but he is also one of Burton's classic crackpot conjurers, like Beetlejuice or Ed Wood."[56] Roger Ebert gave an overall positive review and enjoyed the film. He was primarily impressed by Tim Burton's direction of the younger cast members, but was disappointed with Depp's performance: "What was Depp thinking of? In Pirates of the Caribbean he was famously channeling Keith Richards, which may have primed us to look for possible inspirations for this performance."[57] Mick LaSalle from the San Francisco Chronicle found Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Burton's "best work in years. If all the laughs come from Depp, who gives Willy the mannerisms of a classic Hollywood diva, the film's heart comes from Highmore, a gifted young performer whose performance is sincere, deep and unforced in a way that's rare in a child actor."[58] Peter Travers wrote in Rolling Stone magazine that "Depp's deliciously demented take on Willy Wonka demands to be seen. Depp goes deeper to find the bruises on Wonka's secret heart than what Gene Wilder did. Depp and Burton may fly too high on the vapors of pure imagination, but it's hard to not get hooked on something this tasty. And how about that army of Oompa-Loompas, all played by Deep Roy, in musical numbers that appear to have been choreographed by Busby Berkeley on crack."[59]

text: Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post criticized Depp's acting. "The cumulative effect isn't pretty. Nor is it kooky, funny, eccentric or even mildly interesting. Indeed, throughout his fey, simpering performance, Depp seems to be straining so hard for weirdness that the entire enterprise begins to feel like those excruciating occasions when your parents tried to be hip. Aside from Burton's usual eye-popping direction, the film's strenuous efforts at becoming a camp classic eventually begin to wear thin."[60]

text: In 2007, Gene Wilder said he chose not to see the film. "The thing that put me off ... I like Johnny Depp, I like him, as an actor I like him very much ... but when I saw little pieces in the promotion of what he was doing, I said I don't want to see the film, because I don't want to be disappointed in him."[61] In 2013, when Wilder was asked about the Burton remake, he said "I think it's an insult. It's probably Warner Bros.' insult." He also criticized the choices that Burton made as a director, saying "I don't care for that director. He's a talented man, but I don't care for him doing stuff like he did."[62]

text: Accolades

text: Costume designer Gabriella Pescucci received an Academy Award nomination, but lost to Colleen Atwood for Memoirs of a Geisha.[63] Johnny Depp lost the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy to Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line.[64] More nominations followed from the British Academy Film Awards for Visual Effects, Costume Design (Pescucci), Makeup & Hair (Peter Owen and Ivana Primorac) and Production Design (Alex McDowell).[65] Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was also nominated for the Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film, as well as Performance by a Younger Actor (Freddie Highmore), Music (Danny Elfman) and Costume (Pescucci).[66] Elfman and screenwriter John August were nominated for a Grammy Award with "Wonka's Welcome Song".[67]


document_title: Canasta

question_text: how many decks of cards for canasta with 4 players

text: Canasta

text: Rules for original Canasta[edit]

text: Cards and deal[edit]

text: The classic game is for four players in two partnerships. Variations exist for two and three player games wherein each plays alone, and also for a six player game in two partnerships of three. If partners are chosen they must sit opposite each other. Canasta uses two complete decks of 52 playing cards (French Deck) plus the four Jokers. All the Jokers and twos are wild cards.

text:
Card functions

Card
Value

Red 3s
Bonus points

Black 3s
Safe discard (may be melded when going out)

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, J, Q, K, A
Melding cards

2, Joker
Wild melding cards

tag: table

text: The initial dealer is chosen by any common method, although it should be remembered that in Canasta there is no privilege or advantage to being the dealer. The deal then rotates clockwise after every hand. The dealer shuffles the pack, the player to the dealer's right cuts, and the dealer deals out a hand of 11 cards to each player.

text: The remaining cards are left in a stack in the center of the table.

text: Play[edit]

text: The player to the dealer's left has the first turn, and play then proceeds clockwise. A turn begins either by drawing the first card from the stock into the player's hand or by picking up the entire discard pile. However, there are restrictions on when one can pick up the discard pile. (See Picking up the discard pile, below). If the card drawn from the stock is a red three the player must table it immediately, as one would if melding, and draw another card.

text: The player may then make as many legal melds as they wish from the cards in their hand. A turn ends when the player discards one card from their hand to the top of the discard pile. No player may "undo" a meld or laid card, or change their mind after drawing a card from the deck if they decide that they could have taken the discard pile.

text: Melds and Canastas[edit]

text: Each player/team keeps separate melds of the various ranks of cards. A player may never play to an opponent's meld. A legal meld consists of at least three cards of the same rank. Suits are irrelevant except that black threes are treated differently from red threes. Wild cards can be used as any rank except for threes. Threes may never be melded in ordinary play, although 3 or 4 black threes may be melded last in the process of a player going out.

text: A meld must consist of at least two natural cards, and can never have more wild cards than natural cards (and therefore more than three wild cards). Examples: 5-5-2 and 9-9-9-2-2-Joker are legal melds. 5-2-2 is not a legal meld as it contains only one natural card. 9-9-2-2-2-Joker is not legal as it contains more wild cards than natural cards.

text: A canasta is a meld of at least seven cards, whether natural or mixed. A natural canasta is one that comprises only cards of the same rank. A mixed canasta (or dirty canasta) is one that comprises both natural and wild cards.

text: A "concealed" canasta is a canasta assembled in the player's hand and is played to the table complete, or requiring only the top card from the discard pile (the discard pile being picked up in the usual way). A concealed  canasta may be natural or mixed and carries a bonus score of 100 points (so 400 for a concealed mixed canasta and 600 for a concealed natural canasta).

text: Initial melds[edit]

text: Each card has a specific value which determines both the score and the minimum points a player needs before laying down their first meld(s):

text:
Point values towards minimum meld

Card
Value

4, 5, 6, 7
5

8, 9, 10, J, Q, K
10

2, A
20

Joker
50

text: During each hand the first time a team lays cards on the table the cards of the combined melds must equal a minimum meld requirement based on the values of each of the cards. At the beginning of a game, both teams have an initial meld requirement of 50 points. The total value of each card laid  on the table cannot include the value of the cards a player could possibly pick up from the discard pile but must come only from the cards in their hand. If the combined value of the cards of a player's hand does not meet the minimum value they cannot play the cards on the table nor pick up the discard pile.  After the first hand, the minimum meld requirement is based on a team's score before the hand starts.

text:
Team score
Minimum initial meld

Negative
15

0–1495
50

1500–2995
90

3000 and above
120

text: Example: If a player/team has a score of 1,600 and has not yet made any melds in a hand, an initial meld of 6-6-6, K-K-K-2 cannot be made as it scores only 65 points and the requirement is 90. A meld of 6-6-6, A-A-A-2 would score 95 points and can be played. Note that both initial melds can be played if the team's total score is below 1500, and that neither can be played if the team's total score is 3000 or higher. The minimum meld requirement for a team which has as negative score is 15. As any three cards are always worth at least 15 points it effectively means any meld is sufficient for laying down the first meld(s). Once a teammate has laid down cards on the table, their partner is free to meld whatever cards are legally allowed meaning they do not have to meet the minimum meld requirement.

text: Picking up the discard pile[edit]

text: At the beginning of their turn, a player may pick up the entire discard pile instead of drawing a card from the stock. They may only pick up the discard pile if they can use the top card, either in an existing meld or by making a new meld along with at least two other cards from their hand. Only the top card is relevant for the player/team to pick up the rest of the discard pile. In addition, if the player/team has not yet melded, they must meet the initial meld requirement using the top card of the discard pile in order to pick up the pile.

text: If a wild card has previously been discarded to the pile, the discard pile is frozen. When the discard pile is frozen, it may only be thawed (picked up) if the player can meld the top card with two natural cards of the same rank in the player's hand. The discard pile is also frozen for a player/team that has not yet melded at all this hand; though it will not be frozen for another player/team that has melded.

text: If a wild card or a black three is on top of the discard pile, it may not be picked up. Playing a black three does not freeze the pile, however; it just acts as a "stop card".  The card discarded after a black three allows the pile to be picked up again (unless it is a wild card or another black three).

text: Going out[edit]

text: If more than one player/team has finished with over 5000 points, then the team that "came out" first wins the overall game. A player may go out by using all the cards in their hand only if that player/team has made one or more canastas. The player may go out only by melding all his cards, and may discard a single final card if necessary. It is not required to discard a card in the process of legally going out. If the player/team has not yet made any canastas, players in that team may not make a play which would leave them with no cards in their hand at the end of their turn. The hand ends immediately when any player goes out.

text: When considering going out, a player may ask their partner for permission to go out; however, it is not required to ask partner's permission, but if done the player must abide by the partner's answer. If the partner refuses permission, the player may not go out this turn. If the partner responds "yes", the player must go out this turn.

text: If a player can legally go out, but has three or more black threes in his hand, these may be melded at this time only.

text: Scoring[edit]

text: At the end of each hand, the score for each team is calculated as follows:

text: The total value of all cards melded by that player/team, including cards in canastas minus the total value of all cards remaining in the team's hands, plus any bonuses:

text:
Card values

Card
Value

Red 3s
100

Black 3s
5

4, 5, 6, 7
5

8, 9, 10, J, Q, K
10

2, A
20

Joker
50

text:
Bonus points

Bonus
Value

Going out
100

Each mixed canasta
300

Each natural canasta
500

All four red threes
+400 (800 total)

text: If a partnership has accumulated red threes, but has not yet made any melds when the opposition team goes out, then the total value of all the cards left in the player/team's hand(s) as well as the bonus value of melded red threes are subtracted from that team's previous score. That is, if a team has three red threes but had not yet made any melds, at the end of that hand the team will suffer a penalty of 300 points rather than gaining a 300-point bonus.

text: The game ends when a player/team's total score reaches 5,000 or above. The team with the highest total score at this point wins.

text: Canasta for two or three players[edit]

text: Canasta can be played with fewer than four players with some variations in the rules. The most significant changes are in the number of cards dealt at the beginning of the hand and the fact that each person plays individually. In a game with three players, each player receives 13 cards. In a two player game each player receives 15 cards and each player draws two cards on each of their turns and discards one. If each player draws two cards, there is usually the additional requirement that a player must have made two canastas in order to go out.

text: US American Canasta[edit]

text:
This version of Canasta is widespread, especially in the United States, and it was the official tournament version used by the (possibly defunct) American Canasta Association. American Canasta can be found in few books. One notable exception is Scarne's Encyclopedia of Card Games, where the author claims to have invented a game which he calls International Canasta.
Most of the elements of Modern American Canasta can be found in Scarne's International Canasta, although there are some differences.

text: Winning Moves Games USA first published Canasta Caliente in 1999 and still markets the game in the USA.

text: Due to its relative complexity and unforgiving scoring rules, which give large penalties for many melds that would be acceptable and even good in other versions, this may not be the best version for beginning players; "classic" canasta or Hand & Foot may better serve this purpose. (On the other hand, these versions can teach habits that become major liabilities in American canasta). This version is only meant to be played by exactly four players, in two two-person partnerships. Important differences between this version and the "classic" version include:

text: Setup and play[edit]

text:
13 cards are dealt to each player, then two face down groups of cards are dealt on either side of the draw pile and discard pile, one with four cards and one with three. The latter are referred to as the talons or wings. The four card and three card talons are taken immediately by the partnerships after making their initial melds respectively. The discard pile itself starts out empty.
The draw-two-cards rule is not used. Two canastas are required to go out. Play is to 8,500.
Initial meld requirements are higher - 125 for teams with less than 3,000 points, 155 for teams with 3,000 or more but less than 5,000, 180 thereafter. Moreover, somewhere in your initial meld must be a matching set of three natural cards, though you are allowed to have wild cards in this meld in addition to the natural cards.
Melding a complete canasta, however, is always considered to meet the initial meld requirement, regardless of the point values of the cards involved. (There is no other bonus for such a play).
The discard pile is always frozen. Many groups do not allow taking the pile and making your team's initial meld on the same turn; those that do allow this, require you to make the initial meld first, then take the pile. (The latter was the "official" tournament rule). This can be done on the strength of a pair of natural cards that were already melded that turn, or by producing such a pair from your hand after having met the initial meld requirement without it.
There are some limitations on legal discards. Threes can't be discarded, except as your final discard when going out; the same is true of wild cards. If the discard pile is empty, aces and sevens can't be discarded. It is possible (though very unlikely), however, to be in a situation where you have only wild cards, or only aces, sevens and wild cards with an empty discard pile. In this case you may make such a discard (aces or sevens if possible, wild cards only if there is no other choice - never a three under any circumstances). However, an opponent may challenge the legality of such a play, in which case you must show the opponent your hand to verify that the play was in fact legal.
Both red and black threes may be played to the table as red threes can in "classic" canasta. Unlike in other versions of canasta, this is optional. As in other versions, a player who plays a three draws a replacement card.

text: Melding rules[edit]

text:
Melds that do not include sevens or aces work as in "classic" canasta, except that such melds can include at most two wild cards rather than three.
Melds of more than seven cards are strictly forbidden, as are duplicate melds of the same rank by the same team. This has a few strategic implications; for example, it is impossible to pick up the pile on the strength of a pair of (say) jacks in your hand if your team already has a meld of five jacks, natural or otherwise.
One common exception, is to allow melds of 8 or more cards when going out. Skilled players will play a wild card on an existing canasta for the win.
Sequences (such as those that define Samba, described below) are not legal melds and play no role in the normal play of American Canasta. The closest thing to a sequence that is normally allowed is one of the Special Hands, described below.
Melds of sevens cannot include wild cards. A canasta of sevens is worth 2,500 points rather than the usual 500. However, if the hand ends without your team completing this canasta, your team loses 2,500 points. Retaining three or more sevens in your hand is nearly as bad, carrying a penalty of 1,500.
Aces are treated the same way as sevens, with one exception. If your team's initial meld includes aces, wild cards may be added at that time; if this is done, the aces are treated like any other meld rather than being treated in the special way sevens are. Otherwise, all the same rules, including the potential penalties, apply to aces as to sevens.
Melds consisting entirely of wild cards are legal, much like in the aforementioned[clarification needed] Bolivia variant. A canasta consisting of wild cards is worth 3,000 points if it consists entirely of twos, 2,500 points if it contains all four jokers, or 2,000 points for any other combination. However, failing to complete a canasta once such a meld is made carries a 2,000 point penalty.
It is legal to meld certain special hands as your team's first and only meld. These are hands of exactly 14 cards which you can conceivably have after drawing your card for the turn. If a team plays a special hand, the play ends immediately; the team scores only the points for the special hand (there are no penalties for the cards in the other partner's hand). This is also the only time a player is allowed to not discard a card; even when going out, a player must otherwise have something to discard. There is considerable variation in what special hands are allowed and how they are scored. Among the most commonly accepted special hands are the following (these are the ones that were legal in the tournament version):
Straight - one card of every rank, including a three (the reason you are allowed to retain threes in your hand), plus a joker. This is worth 3,000.
Pairs - seven pairs, which either do not include wild cards (worth 2,500), or include twos, sevens and aces (all three must be present - this combination is worth 2,000).
Garbage - Two sets of four of a kind and two sets of three of a kind, which do not include any wild cards or threes. For example, 4-4-4-4-7-7-7-9-9-9-9-J-J-J would be considered a Garbage hand. This is worth 2,000.

text: Other scoring rules[edit]

text:
Yet another variation on scoring threes is used. Scoring is 100 for one three of a particular colour, 300 for two, 500 for three or 1,000 for four; red threes and black threes are counted separately. This is a penalty if your team has no canastas at the end of the hand (and for this purpose threes in your hand count as though they were on the table), ignored entirely if your team has exactly one canasta, and a bonus if your team has two or more canastas.
If your team has no complete canastas when the play ends, any cards that have been melded count against that team, in addition to any of the above penalties that may apply. A team with at least one canasta gets positive points for these cards as usual.

text: Samba[edit]

text: Samba is a variant of Canasta, played with three decks, including jokers, for a total of 162 cards. 15 cards are dealt to each of four players, and an additional card is turned up. The game is to 10,000 points instead of 5,000. Samba allows sequence melds of three or more (for example, the 4, 5, and 6 of hearts or the Queen, King and Ace of Spades). If a player is able to make a sequence of seven (for example, the 5 through J of diamonds), this is a samba and is worth 1,500 points. Rather than four red threes being worth 800 points, six red threes are worth 1,000 points. Two wild cards is the maximum allowed for a meld. The minimum initial meld is 150 if a partnership has 7,000 or more.

text: Other "national" canastas[edit]

text: Bolivian Canasta[edit]

text: Bolivian Canasta is similar to Samba, as it uses three decks and sequence melds.[11]  Play is to 15,000. Wild card canastas (bolivias) count 2,500. A side must have a samba (called escalera in this game) and at least one other canasta to go out. Red threes only count positive if two or more canastas have been melded. Black threes are negative 100 instead of negative 5 when left in hand.

text: Brazilian Canasta[edit]

text: Similar to Bolivia, but only to 10,000. The minimum meld requirements are 150 from 5,000 to 7,000; a canasta from 7,000 to 8,000; 200 from 8,000 to 9,000; and a natural canasta from 9,000 up. Wild card canastas count 2,000. Partnerships receive 1,000 for five red threes and 1,200 for all six. If a side has a sequence of five cards or less, it loses 1,000.

text: British Canasta[edit]

text:
Similar to the original rules but with the important addition of 'Acaba' (Spanish for 'The End'). A player may say this at any point during their turn and will immediately forfeit the round awarding the opposing player or team 1,500 points and receiving 0 points, ending the very dull phase where one player or team has total control over the discard deck. When playing in teams a player may ask their teammate for permission to say acaba just as they may ask before going out and they will also be bound by the response in the same way.[12]
[13]

text: Chilean Canasta[edit]

text: Allows both sambas and bolivias. Can be played with either three decks (162 cards) or four decks (216 cards).

text: Cuban Canasta[edit]

text: A two-deck variant to 7,500. Requires 150 for an initial meld if a partnership is over 5,000. The deck is always frozen. Wild card canastas are worth between 2,000 and 4,000; depending on the number of deuces. Threes are scored only if canastas are made; they count 100 for one, 300 for two, 500 for three and 1,000 for four. Black threes are removed from play if a discard pile is taken; a partnership that removes all four black threes this way gets 100 points.

text: Italian Canasta[edit]

text: Italian canasta is a Samba variant. The number of cards in the discard pile at the beginning of the game varies with the initial card turned up. The discard pile is always frozen. Deuces may, but a partnership may not play deuces as wild cards if deuces have been melded and a canasta is incomplete. Game is to 15,000

text: Uruguayan Canasta[edit]

text: It is exactly like the original canasta, in its original version.[14]

text: Boat Canasta[edit]

text: This variation originates in Slovakia. Since the definition of Canasta rules differed from player to player a strong urge has risen for unified rules. This in turn was satisfied by the creation of Boat Canasta, which really is a mix of other known rules, but thoroughly optimized. Currently this variant of Canasta is steadily gaining popularity mainly in Slovakia, but also in countries such as France, Germany and England.

text: Hand and Foot Canasta[edit]

text: This version is a quad deck game that is played with a hand and a foot, unlike traditional canasta that just has a hand. Hand and Foot is a Canasta variant involving four to seven decks and is played by teams of two players (usually two teams, but it also works with three or four teams). The number of decks used is typically one more than the number of players, though this can vary. Due to the larger pool of available cards, it is much easier to form canastas in Hand and Foot than in standard Canasta, which changes the strategy considerably. Some players feel this version is more enjoyable for beginners. The variant was born in the 1970s; commercial decks to play Hand and Foot have been available since 1987. Important rule changes for this variant include:

text:
Each player is dealt two piles of 11 cards, which will be referred to as the "hand" and the "foot". The hand is picked up normally, while the foot remains face down until the hand is exhausted.
A player who melds all cards from the original hand picks up the foot as a new hand and continues playing. A player who exhausts the original hand by discarding picks up the foot as a new hand, but does not play from it until the next turn.
On each turn, players draw two cards from the stock. Each player discards one card on each turn.
The number of canastas required to go out are three red (or clean, i.e. no wild cards)[further explanation needed] and four black (dirty, i.e. with wild cards)[further explanation needed] canastas. When playing a singles game (that is, without partners), the requirement is one red canasta and two black canastas.
Discards may be picked up with a natural pair, but a player must take the top five cards from the discard pile.
Threes may not be melded; so, since the only way to get rid of them is by discarding them one at a time, the number of threes in your hand represents a minimum number of turns before you could possibly go out.
Black threes (in your hand or foot) score five points, red threes are scored as negative 300 points.

text: Initial melds[edit]

text: At the beginning of a game, both teams have an initial meld requirement of 50. The requirement increases in value in subsequent hands.

text:
Hand
Minimum initial meld

1st hand
50

2nd hand
90

3rd hand
120

4th hand
150

text:
Rules for going out are:
You must have a minimum of three red (no wild cards) and 4 black canastas.
You ask your partner for permission to go out.

text: The scoring[edit]

text:
Bonus scores

Going out
100

Each mixed (black, dirty) canasta
300

Each natural (red, clean) canasta
500

text: Point values are:

text:
Point values for cards in Canasta

Card
Value

4, 5, 6, 7
5

8, 9, 10, J, Q, K
10

2 (Wild), A
20

Joker (Wild)
50

text: Miscellaneous variations for Classic Canasta and other types[edit]

text:
There is a special case where any player/team that manages to meld 7 canastas in one hand (natural or mixed) automatically gain 5000 points and thus win the game.
A number of cards other than 11 may be dealt at the beginning of the game, 13 and 15 being common choices. Some groups vary the number of cards drawn inversely with the number of players.
To make picking up the discard pile more challenging, require that a natural pair be played on the same turn that the pile is picked up.
A concealed canasta occurs when a canasta is melded directly from a players hand. Usually in also going out: going out concealed which earns an extra 100 point bonus over the standard 100 point going out bonus.
One variant allows melding up to three wild cards in a meld, regardless of the number of natural cards melded.
When the stock is depleted, consider flipping over the discard pile and turning it into a new stock to extend play.

text: In popular culture[edit]

text: The expression "as dead as Canasta" cites the transience of popular interest in the game within the United States.

text: In the J. D. Salinger novel The Catcher in the Rye, protagonist Holden Caulfield says of fellow student Ackley, "'Listen,' I said, 'do you feel like playing a little Canasta?' He was a Canasta fiend."