Entertainment desk
< April 24	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 26 >

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.

April 25

Basketball phrase, "and one"

In basketball, what does the phrase "and one" mean? For example, I have heard the phrase, "two shots and one" used before. What does this mean, or where does it come from in the game. I have a hunch it has to do with foul shots, but what exactly? Thanks. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a player is fouled while shooting and makes the shot, the points for that shot count and one free throw is awarded. The basket counts, 'and one' free throw. anonymous6494 02:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movie/TV show credits: "With" and "And" for famous actors

When did movie/TV show producers start using "with" or "and" for some of the more famous actors in the main credits? Examples:

In Clash of the Titans (2010 film), the main part of the closing cast credits ends with "...with Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson"
In Boston Legal, the actors William Shatner and Candice Bergen appear at the end ("...with William Shatner and Candice Bergen"), despite playing the main characters (next for James Spader as the protagonist)
In The Final Destination, the opening credits end with "...and Mykelti Williamson", since Williamson was the most famous cast member of the movie.

—C Teng ^(talk) 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous posing of, and responses to, a question akin to this (without the when? element) can be found here. Deor (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I noticed it was when Pulp Fiction came out and the credits list ended with "...and Bruce Willis". This fits in well with way his character sat alongside the other roles. I'm sure it was probably used before that though.91.109.254.94 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of separation/distinction within the credits is a contractual arrangement and/or an attempt to emphasize a particular actor who's a well-known name but might have a relatively small role in the film. This approach goes back quite a ways. Another technique is "...and introducing..." for a new actor the studio is trying to hype. This may have been previously covered, but an article to start with is Credit (creative arts) which will take you to film credits, "billing", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs is correct. Check out the Superman movie poster, where two stars are named before the movie is named, then one actor is "Starring", then the rest are "Also Starring". Some movie posters even have a little box around the name of an actor; this Taxi Driver movie poster has (1) De Niro's name before the film's name; then (2) Foster's name in a box; then (3) Brooks with as "Tom", then two more actors, then (4) Boyle in a box and with as "Wizard", then (5) Cybill Shepherd in giant type, bigger than De Niro's, with as "Betsy". That's a lot of twisting and turning. I think, but am not 100% sure, that this is an actual production movie poster from the launch of the film. It is obviously not because the graphic designer thought we would care about the name of the character played by Albert Brooks; it is all because the actors' agents have negotiated exactly where and how that actor's name appears in the credits; each of these little variants is intended to set the actor apart from the rest in order to get the name out there more prominently. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Taxi Driver poster doesn't download for me, Comet. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Techno song name help!

Here is a link to the beginning of the song (note that the key probably isn't the same, and that the rhythm may be slightly different... the tempo is pretty much the same though): [1] It is a Techno song. If you know the title of this song, I'd really appreciate it, thanks! —C Teng ^(talk) 00:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't put my finger on it, definitely familiar. Sounded better at 180 bpm. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 180 works. I just meant that it wasn't 250 or anything like that. —C Teng ^(talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with techno, is generally the title isn't announced by the DJ, and you're not in the right state of mind to remember even if he did :) DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

film: bus hijack

hi guys,i want to know the name of a film which is about hijacking a bus.in the start of the film happens a explosion in a public bus (it is yellow) and then comes a phone call from the hijacker to a telephone booth.I remember another film about hijacking a ship,which is the next film of the series(i guess there are only 2 film in that series).Can anyone please tell me the name of the film.Thanks.dany (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed?--Michig (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was called..."The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down". Adam Bishop (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed would match the OP's description near perfectly with the only exception being that the exploded bus wasn't yellow. The second film, Speed 2: Cruise Control was set aboard a cruise ship. Dismas|^(talk) 12:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spoof The Big Bus fits the general scenario, and featured a yellow and white bus. Perhaps Coolerking is conflating this with Speed. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movie theater operating costs

How much does it cost to show a film, ignoring labor costs? I'm talking about justing showing a film on a big screen. Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you including the pro-rated cost of the film itself and the equipment, or just the electricity to show it ? StuRat (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the person is asking about the cost that goes to the "industry". There is no specific cost, but I will give a general description of how it works. I have been out of the movie theater industry for about 15 years, but I seriously doubt it has changed. This is how it works: First, you need a film buyer. If you work with a company like AMC, you have one. If you are independent, you need to hire one. The film buyer gets the distribution companies to send films to your theater. Think about it this way... Do you think that Miramax will hire a staff of people to take phone calls from thousands of theaters, all asking what movies are available soon and what will the contract be on each one? Of course not. They limit interaction to a small number of film buyers. The film buyers, of course, take a cut of the profits from the theater. Once the film buyer's job is done, you have to actually get the movie to the theater. The film delivery companies step in. You don't have a lot of choice there. The distributor is sending the movie to you, so they choose who to use. They will use someone who will charge the theater for the delivery and then, of course, give a kick back someone at the distributor. I've always felt that it is illegal to have the theater pay to get films delivered, but if you don't agree to it you don't get movies. Now, you have a movie. How much do you charge for tickets? The distributors tell you what you have to charge - like it or not. If you don't charge enough, you don't get to show the movie. So, to make it easy on patrons, all movies are set to the current highest price of all of the distributors. Of course, they do allow things like matinee prices. They also allow a certain number of free tickets. You sell tickets. My theaters were in an area with a 5% entertainment tax. So, 5% of every ticket went to tax. Of course, there was business taxes on top of that - but that didn't come out of every single ticket sale. After each day, you report how many tickets you sold to the distributor. The distributor would take a percentage - usually around 70% - of the ticket sale. Often, it was possible to get the buyer and delivery company to work on percentage as well. The buyer usually wanted 15% and the delivery company wanted 10%. Add that up, you get 5+70+15+10=100%. Add in cost of employees, electricity, water, telephone, business taxes, advertising, etc... and a movie theater is a very dumb thing to do. There is absolutely no profit. That is where you play with the numbers. You don't pay anyone right away (or worse, up front). You wait until you need them again. So, you just finished a movie with Miramax, you don't pay them until you want another movie from Miramax. Then, you can do one of two things. If the previous movie was great, you tell them that you sold tons of tickets and you have a lot of money for them. They owe you a favor and should cut you a deal on the new movie. If the previous movie bombed, you tell them that the previous movie was a bomb and you nearly went out of business, they owe you a favor and should give you a deal on the new movie. In the end, a good manager will end up keeping about 50% of all ticket sales. If you are lucky enough to work for a conglomerate, like AMC, they will have outstanding movie purchasing managers and will work more like a franchise. You pay a percentage of all profits every month and they handle the negotiating. I hope that makes it more understandable how it all works. As I said, it is very generalized, but overall it is how the scheme works. -- kainaw ™ 01:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. I was wondering about the pro-rated cost of the equipment and electricity. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is how it works, where it seems impossible to make any profit, why would any theatre owner tell the truth about their ticket sales? For example, you actually sell 1000 tickets but tell distributors you only sold 500. You pay your 5+70+15+10=100% on those 500 tickets to the distributor, taxman, buyer and delivery people, and use the money from the other 500 tickets to run your business. Astronaut (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern economy, neither movie theatres NOR the movie makers make a lot of money on ticket sales. Nearly all of the money ends from direct ticket sales ends up going to the distributor. Movie theatres make much more money on concessions than on ticket sales, while the movie companies make most of their money on residuals (i.e. merchandising) and on later DVD sales and TV broadcast rights. There just aren't enough tickets sold (even at their exhorbitant prices they are today) to support the entire movie industry, so the only people that end up making money on them ends up being the distributors, since THEY don't have any alternate means of revenue generation, like the theaters and the makers do. --Jayron32 12:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for equipment, it is expensive. The price varies a lot. Not only is there used and new equipment. There is also many levels of quality. I always used Christie projectors because they are very dependable - once I had a bulb explode in one. It took out a lot of the equipment around the projector, but the front of the projector survived just fine. You also need to look at the entire system: Projector (including bulb brightness, lens capability (flat/scope), automation (can it switch lenses automatically), shutdown capability, etc...). Sound system (Mono, Stereo, Dolby Stereo, Dolby Stereo Surround, THX...). Platter system - it is silly to run on reels, you need platters. Extra stuff like a screen, speakers, seats, marquee, etc... Even though there are thousands of theaters, there simply isn't enough to get this equipment produced in mass quantities that will drive down price. So, the price remains high. As for cost in electricity, expect anywhere from 200W to 600W to get a projector running. Most run on 3-phase. Much of the power goes into the bulb. I haven't worked on 3D projectors, but I've been told they use more power because the bulb has to be twice as bright. -- kainaw ™ 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not complaining about theater ticket prices. I just want to know the depreciation+electricity cost. In fact, what prompted my question was a visit to a basically empty showing. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem for a movie theater. Profits do not come from ticket sales. They come from concessions. If you don't sell many tickets, you get few people purchasing concessions. So, you lose money. But, you don't want to cancel a show just because the people didn't buy candy and popcorn. That would make matters worse. So, theaters often have a cheaper ticket price during the day (when fewer people go to the movies) to entice more people to come in. There is also an art to movie times. If you don't know what you are doing, you just randomly set the movie times throughout the day. If you know what you are doing, you identify the expected crowd for a movie and set the start times about 30 minutes before those crowds are expected to hit a restaurant to eat. The goal is to get them to go to the movie before dinner - so they will be hungrier and buy more food. The actual cost of showing the movie is based on a lot of things: cost of electricity (varies wildly from place to place), type of projector, type of sound system, number of employees, number of theaters (to share the cost of things like employees, taxes, lease, etc...). Like many businesses, it is too hard to focus on a profit per show. Instead, a theater looks at total cost of doing business each week and total income each week. The goal is to have the income exceed the costs. -- kainaw ™ 03:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who location

Does anyone know what church (chapel, cathedral, etc) was used as the location for the 'museum' at the start of The Time of Angels? 131.111.248.99 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brecon Cathedral (image). 90.203.51.88 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]