Entertainment desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 3

Tallest Batman actor

Of all the actors that have played Batman in the Batman film series, which one is the tallest of all the Batman actors? David Pro (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This borders on "Are you too lazy to Google?". In a few seconds of typing the four actors name into google, I got:

Michael Keaton: 5' 10"
Val Kilmer: 6' 1/2"
George Clooney: 5' 11"
Christian Bale: 6' 1/2"

So, it appears that we have a tie. -- kainaw ™ 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, actors always lie about their heights, so subtract 3" from each of the above and you will probably get the real heights. Tempshill (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the OP asked about the film series, but I feel compelled to point out that according to IMDb, Adam West is 6' 2". — Michael J 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Roger Waters

I'd want to know: but Roger Waters is married?--79.52.109.105 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This biography says he's been married four times and has two ~~daughters~~edit:children (one of whom is model India Waters. I'm surprised this isn't in the Roger Waters article. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nndb -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House

In medical programs like House, some seemingly-highly-unlikely medical problem is generally the focus of an episode. How accurate are the problems they come up with? And if they're accurate, where do they get it all from? Do they employ real doctors, or something? Vimescarrot (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site, which is run by an MD, reviews House articles; it seems he's moderately happy with the medicine as presented. Yes, they use doctors as consultants; but that doesn't stop them tarting up the medicine for dramatic effect. In case you've not noticed the pattern, it seems every week the patient has an impossible to diagnose overlay of one incredibly obscure metabolic disorder that was only ever reported once, in the Eastern Ukranian Journal of Pediatric Phlebotomy (e.g House: "a classic case of Urgachev's karyocytic anaemia if ever I saw it"; girl eyecandy doctor "But that only occurs in springer spaniels"; boy eyecandy doctor: "if we don't fix this, he'll be a dead dog") overlaid with a dramatic but unlikely disease or disorder (e.g. anthrax, radiation poisoning, brain fluke). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least the justification that House only chooses the bizarre, interesting cases. His clinic cases are much more mundane. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also reminds me of Perry Mason, in that everything preceding the last 5 minutes or so is totally red herring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the doctors always almost kill the patient, of course. Tempshill (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the bonus materials of one of the seasons of Grey's Anatomy, they mention that they hire a medical consultant. If I remember correctly, they throw scenarios at the consultant and they say whether something like that has happened or if it's possible and so on. Dismas|^(talk) 08:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Boll - if he is known for making bad films, how does he keep getting them distributed?

I understand about the German film tax shelter system meaning that he can keep getting money to make films - at least up to 2007 when the rules were tightened up. But, my question is, if he keeps making notoriously bad films, why do film distribution companies accept them for distribution? Even if its just straight to DVD? There are so many films competing for distribution, why do the distributors choose to accept his in place of some better movie? 78.146.237.28 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because, evidently, they're making money for the distributor and the cinema. The Uwe Boll article says House of the dead took $5.73 million on its opening weekend, and imdb says it took $10 million in the US overall. Much of that will have gone to the distributor, who takes the lions share of the first week or two's box office. But the cinema made money too, off its share and off the refreshment stand. And cinemas book movies that have had bad reviews or are likely to be stinkers because they know if you and your friends show up at the multiplex to see Really Good Movie but it's sold out, you're more likely than not to go see something else instead, rather than go home. And the cinema doesn't have enough Harry Potters to fill all its theatres all the time; a cinema is all about fixed costs, so if even a couple of people are in a theatre watching a movie it's making more money for them than that cinema sitting idle. I've never seen an Uwe Boll movie, and I don't look forward to the prospect, but you can't fault the man for his business acumen. Maybe he could make more money making good films, but I'll bet he's much better off than you or I. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the philosophy of moviemakers for a long time. It's not necessarily about inherent quality, it's about making money. Burt Reynolds was known for making popular movies that the critics panned. Robert Wuhl once commented, "Burt Reynolds makes so many bad movies, that when someone else makes a bad movie, Burt gets a royalty!" I've been reading a book about the Hollywood of the late 1940s. If you think movies are bad now, you should have been around then. They weren't called "B" movies for nothing. But they brought people in, before TV took over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in short, the critics dislike his films, but the public (judging from the box office revenues) like them and they are profitable? 78.146.66.31 (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the critics like and what the public likes often do not mesh. Consider the success of the Police Academy series, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that "the public like them". His movies have below average revenues, if memory serves. Some people like them, sure, but it's a gross overgeneralization to say "the public" likes them. Tempshill (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the public do not like them, then how do you explain why they go and see them? 84.13.195.145 (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristanna Loken in tight clothing? Dismas|^(talk) 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it depends on what "below average" revenue means. If they're cheaply made, they might bring in less gross receipts but still be more profitable than some other movies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the films are based on existing franchises that have an existing "built-in" audience that will go see them no matter what their quality level is. APL (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a commercial showing a boyfriend having a scoreboard on his date. I think it came from Circuit City?

There is a video-game-like scoreboard on the top right or left of the TV screen. The man picks up his date. What he does determines how many points he earns or gets taken away. He tells her "Your eyes are so blue," and earns 100 points. She replies with, "Dude, they're brown!" and gets 200 points subtracted.

Then they're at a dinner in a restaurant. He listens to her, and keeps getting 50 points every few seconds for listening. He looks at another pretty girl walking by, and 1500 points get deducted. He tells his date, "Why can't other girls dress more like you?" Then he adds 2,000 points back to his score.

When he drops her off, he asks, "So, how about a kiss?" She looks scared, and 3,000 points get taken off. Then he says, "But we'll wait, 'til we really get to know each other!" Then he earns 10,000 points.

The scene cuts to the guy and the gal playing video games on a store video game display. I'm not quite sure whether this was a Circuit City commercial.

But will anyone here please help me find the commercial matching this description? I've been meaning to watch it again for years. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Google? Youtube? That ad definitely sounds familiar, but I don't know what it was advertising. If it was Circuit City, and that fact didn't stick with the viewer, it could certainly explain a lot. Meanwhile, I'm reminded of this old one, where a guy is on a blind date with a woman who's plain and overweight. The guy struggles to come up with a compliment, and finally says, "You know, for a fat girl, you don't sweat much!" I'm assuming he spent the night in the ICU. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried GooTube. I've not found it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LUUSAP (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]