Entertainment desk
< February 26	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 28 >

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.

February 27

Flintlock McClintock

Has there ever been a fictional character known as "Flintlock McClintock"? If so, what work did he or she appear in?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the McClintocks wikipedia editors have run across (and variant spellings) are on that list page. The best-known one is probably the John Wayne film McLintock!, which would have been a potential candidate, but his character is called "G.W." Have you tried Google? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a minor Flintstones parody of McLintock? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possbly. However, I couldn't find any reference in Google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no matches at webrock. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Wife and Kids

Which episode has the game "Don't let me see it" in it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.17.1 (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in season two, episode one: Mom's Away Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=Nrc2P7IhptI 217.44.34.25 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Reality

Does anyone remember the game Majestic [1] for the PC? It would call you on the phone and send emails and all kinds of stuff.

Are there any games around anymore that are simalar to this with the instant messageing and phone calls etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.50.226 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The game of Life itself. See the game instructions at If-. Life only becomes a game when there are some goals that you are trying to achieve. Without those, Life is rather boring. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate reality game and List of alternate reality games may be of interest. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 22:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance move < oo >

Resolved

– — Michael J 21:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a term for the popular dancing action where the dancer moves his/her two fingers across his/her eyes like a > in one direction, then uses the other hand to move like a < in the other direction? — Michael J 17:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the thing they did in Pulp Fiction? Staecker (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the BATMAN. 86.148.249.231 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thank you! I never saw Pulp Fiction so I don't know that reference, but I've seen it done frequently in other films. And now knowing the reference, I realized that WHAAOE — It's the "Batusi" from the first episode of the 1966 Batman TV series. I actually remember it from that. I guess Adam West originated it ... as seen on this YouTube clip. Thanks again, 86! — Michael J 21:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Dinner with Andre

Does the film only show two men sitting at a restaurant table, or does it cut away to anything else? If yes, what else is shown? Are there any flashbacks, for example, or voice-overs of other scenes? Does it have any other scenes at the beginning or end? 89.243.151.239 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall it has brief establishing scenes of Wally arriving at the restaurant at the beginning and leaving at the end, with a voiceover narration by Wally. The closest thing to a flashback that I can recall is when Andre shows Wally a snapshot of himself at the retreat that's the main subject of the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real "live" programmes on UK terrestial television

Many apparantly live programmes are not live but are recorded previously. What UK terrestial TV programmes are genuinely live? Which are pre-recorded but put over as being live? Recently I heard the announcer warning viewers of swearing before a seemingly live tv show, which gave the game away. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a warning about swearing is necessarily a give away, since for some live programs it's almost guaranteed there will be swearing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.204 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THe programme is a regular weekly programme and on other weeks no warning about swearing had been given. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a show "apparently live"? Unless a show says it is live, or has a feature which must be live (eg. the results of a phone vote a few minutes after the lines closed), there is no reason to believe a show is live. Lots of talent shows are live, the news is live, but that's about it. Can you give an example of a show you aren't show about? --Tango (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA, even so-called "live" shows, such as sports broadcasts, often have a built-in delay nowadays. We have Janet Jackson to thank for that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many years before that, Saturday Night Live was fearful of what Richard Pryor might say, and tape delayed the supposedly-live show. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's just a few seconds delay and would generally still be considered "live". I'd take "apparently live" to mean the sort of show where if someone misspeaks or stumbles or something, they just continue, same as they've have to do if it was live. I've heard the term "live on tape" for shows of that type that are actually prerecorded. I believe this is typical of talk shows and many (not all) game shows. Some sportscasts are also done on a delayed basis (moving the show into prime time if it's a popular sport from a distant time zone, or into a late-night slot if it's less popular, say) with commentary recorded as the game is going on, so that's another sort of "apparently live", although the viewer might know better. --Anonymous, 22:57 UTC, February 27, 2010.

The news on most terrestrial channels is live for the majority of program. --Phydaux (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Anonymous wrote, I believe some UK tv shows are recorded "as live" and minor errors are left in. It may I suppose be done in one take but just not at the time it is shown. I expect it saves staff overtime rates and is easier for the guests to get there and return. Because there is only one time zone in the UK, live shows are more common. Its rather odd that Americans feel that they can contribute to a question about UK tv channels which they've probably never seen in their lives. 89.243.151.239 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is live? I can be watching a football match on television, shown live, and then go into another room in the house and turn the radio commentary on - same match, also "live", and find there's a 30 second delay from what I hear on the radio to what I see on TV! Yet both are broadcast live. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the actual time it takes to process the feed and transmit it, which might take a few seconds for it to travel from the transmission source to the television to factor in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.204 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 30 second delay seems unlikely. Most of the delay you get in that kind of situation is due to the time taken to convert digital TV signals into picture - digital TV is delayed by a second of two from analogue TV of the same program. --Tango (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-live programme would be recorded some time before it was broadcast, which has the incidental effect that any serious blunders or disasters could be edited out or re-filmed. A live programme may be delayed for a few seconds because of the time the technology takes to process it, or to enable anything offensive to be muted in the case of live phone-ins for example, but cannot be re-done before broadcast. I'm surprised I have to explain this. 89.242.47.252 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The key difference is that the transmission starts before the filming has finished. --Tango (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't AC/DC change their setlist?

AC/DC's Black Ice World Tour sometimes goes months without a change to the setlist, which is annoying some fans. The only response so far from the band is this interview with Brian Johnson. Basically he said that the lighting people and technicians need to know what's happening if they change the setlist. Which is very true, but why does this mean they can only change one song every few months? Can someone explain it slightly better than he has? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.238.176 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the idea of a tour that you play to different people each time? What would be gained by changing the set? --Tango (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some fans who follow a group from city to city. Naturally, they could get tired of hearing the same songs over and over. They should ask themselves how tired the group itself might get from doing the same songs over and over. I have a vague recollection that at one point Paul McCartney expressed disdain at Yesterday because he had had to perform it so many times it had lost its appeal for him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's not just AC/DC, it's any artist/band on tour. All or most of them perform the same setlist consistently on every tour. This reminds me of Muse fans causing a shitstorm awhile back because they were performing the same songs on the European leg of their tour. I think that had to do more with the fact that their favorite songs weren't included on the list. Anyway, I agree with Brian, performing different songs at random intervals throughout your tour means having to a) rehearse the song, if it's one that's seldom performed or too difficult to afford fucking up by randomly playing it with no practice, b) some songs are harder to perform when you're older. AC/DC are no spring chickens. And c) depending on the band, different songs have different lighting/stage sets. So more to Brian's point about stage technicians. Especially when you take into account the people responsible for mixing the sound. It is annoying for bands to perform the SAME songs in the SAME manner every night for months on end, and with every concert they have to play those songs with the same enthusiasm. They can't appear bored or tired, because they're never playing for the exact same group of fans. There will always be someone attending an AC/DC concert for the first time in their lives. The band has to make it an unforgettable experience, even if they personally wish they could take the night off. If some people make it a mission to follow the band on every date on their tour, then too bad. Most people don't do that, so if the obsessive fans get sick of hearing "Highway To Hell", then they should probably limit themselves to just one or two shows per tour. And who the hell has the time and money to follow a band on tour? Even if I had tons of cash at my disposal and it was my favorite band I wouldn't do that! 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24.189 pretty much nails it. The biggest exception to the norm that I can think of is Bruce Springsteen, who mixes up the setlist every night, precisely because he wants to keep the E Street Band on their toes and make it an exciting show for all concerned. He doesn't tell the band what the set is going to be until about an hour before showtime. As if that wasn't enough, there's a section of the show where fans at the front write their requests on placards, which he goes around collecting. Then he chooses two or three from the requests to play. These could be anything from his vast back catalogue or some classic cover song, and the band just has to play it as best they can. Because they're consummate musicians, they never screw it up. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Gilmour said once that he became very bored (my word, from memory) of performing the Wall shows. During those shows, a wall was physically built up between the band and the audience. In order for various pieces of the wall to be in place at just the right times in the set list, the songs had zero room for deviation. The only exception was for the solo during "Comfortably Numb". It's likely this way for many bands. They have elaborate light and video set ups for the songs, so changing that very often can lead to errors being made. Going back to the Pink Floyd example, many times their shows have not deviated much from night to night with the exception of the encores. Each song has a set video to go along with it shown on Mr. Screen, plus lighting set ups, smoke machines, etc. And let's not forget the guitar techs who have to know what song is coming up and have whichever guitar is needed by the band members properly tuned for that song. Dismas|^(talk) 04:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Springsteen doesn't do much with the lights that's very fancy, which probably makes it easier for him to improvise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: The Wall Tour was 31 shows only. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Crowes are known for almost never playing the exact same set twice. 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]