Entertainment desk
< March 16	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 18 >

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.

March 17

Zork I

I played Zork I, killed the troll with the sword and dropped the sword in the Troll Room. It reappeared in the Ladder Bottom in the coal mine! What's going on here? 4 T C 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thief grabbed it, realized it was not a treasure, and dropped it somewhere else. He's liable to do this with any item lying around in an area you've visited. Algebraist 07:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bachleda-Curuś‎

Is the Polish speed skater Katarzyna Bachleda-Curuś‎ (née Wójcicka) related to Alicja the actress? If so, how? Sources I was able to find are all in Polish, surprise surprise. Can anyone confirm? From their respective articles the things that link them together seem to be their surnames and the city. Thx. --Kvasir (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking on the respective talk pages? Gabbe (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, both, no luck. --Kvasir (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted yourself, Katarzyna's maiden name is Wójcicka, so it's unlikely that she is related to Alicja. Her husband, Jakub Bachleda-Curuś,[1] might be Alicja's relative though, but how close I cannot tell. Bachleda-Curuś is a common name (see this disambiguation page in Polish Wikipedia) among the highlanders (górale) of the Zakopane area, and may be used by any member of the Bachleda-Curuś branch of the powerful Bachleda clan, the second largest – after the Gąsienica – of the Tatra highlander clans.[2][3] — Kpalion^(talk) 21:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bachleda-Curuś looks uncommon enough to my Canadian eyes that I thought the two must/should be somehow related. --Kvasir (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://sport.onet.pl/imprezy/vancouver-2010/bachleda-curus-sa-juz-totalnie-gotowi,1,3174782,wiadomosc.html Someone commented in polish about Alicja in an article about Katarzya. I'm guess he/she was asking if they are related... and someone responded mentioning "kuzyna", is that cousin? I'll need an online translator haha. --Kvasir (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movie - "Undefeated" listed Paul Newman's daughter Melissa Newman playing the role of teenager Charlotte Langdon, yet she was only 8 years old.

According to all sources I have checked including Wikipedia, Melissa Newman, the daughter of Paul Newman was the girl that played Charlotte Langdon, the teenage daughter of Col. Langdon played by Rock Hudson.

She is courted by two men, Bubba, played by Jan Michael-Vincent and Blu the Indian scout played by Roman Gabriel.

The problem is: Melissa was born September 17, 1961 which would have made her most likely only 7 years old at time of filming.

I have posted this question in various forums and discussion and have yet to get an answer much less a response.

All sources confirm Melissa's birthday to be in 1961...that begs the question, who then is the girl in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.34.139 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB says that they are two separate Melissa Newman's: Melissa Newman (II) daughter of Paul, first acted in 1973 and Melissa Newman (I) who acted in Undefeated. Rmhermen (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup in our articles. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated our article on Melissa Newman to mention that there is another one. We probably should have articles on both, with the middle name used to differentiate between them. The one who isn't Paul Newman's daughter appears to be the more prolific actress, yet our article is on the less prolific one. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the Screen Actor's Guild require that all actors have unique names ? StuRat (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how they could. Can people be forced to change their real names just because some existing member of the Guild happens to be using the same name, which could well be a stage name in any event? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forced? No. Denied screen credit? Certainly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By what authority? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably by contractually agreeing to abide by the SAG's rules. Obviously there have been a number of actors with duplicate names who weren't also Sr. and Jr. However, conflict with anything resembling a well-established actor is to be avoided. Examples: James Stewart changed his name to Stewart Granger because there was already a famous James Stewart; Michael Fox adopted the middle initial J. to distinguish himself from a previous actor named Michael Fox; Tom Conway renamed himself to Tim Conway because there had been another actor named Tom Conway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling it, a comment on this thread reminded me that David Tennant commented in a Top Gear interview that he had to change his name because there was already a David McDonald. This is the interview. He says it's the actors' union Equity that lays down that rule. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid rule, if you ask me. Record labels don't enforce this bullshit on musicians, there's two drummers by the name of Roger Taylor (Queen and Duran Duran), and Evanescence now even has two members with the name of Will Hunt. If two professional musicians sharing the same name isn't a problem in the music industry, then why is it in Hollywood? What happens if a new actor has the same name as a very famous musician, will SAG force them to change it as well? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, as mentioned in our Stage name article, is that an actor doesn't want their name to evoke another performer's name. The actor wants to promote himself when he is mentioned in the press or in the credits, not promote some other guy with the same name. I was interested that this SAG page says, after noting that "SAG makes every effort to avoid enrolling members with the same name or with very similar names", that they ask you for 3 alternate name choices when you sign up. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then, how did Paul Newman's daughter get by this rule ? Was Paul able to exert enough influence to give his daughter a pass and allow her to keep her name ? StuRat (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. Paul Newman and Melissa Newman are different names. When they say "...members with the same name..." they don't just mean surname. Otherwise the Sheens would have had the same problem. Dismas|^(talk) 01:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the rest of this thread... Paul's daughter was also named Melissa, despite there being another actress named Melissa Newman. Matt Deres (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had and I screwed up. Sorry. Dismas|^(talk) 12:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If record labels don't force musicians to change their names, it's probably because it is the band's name that is the important one. Alabama 3, for example, is known as A3 in the US because of the possibility of confusion with the band "Alabama". Matt Deres (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you got a point there. I know that two bands legally cannot perform under the same name. But what about two solo artists with the same first and last name? Has there ever been such case? If either of them refused to change it, then what would happen? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that two bands legally cannot perform under the same name. - What's your citation for that statement? If I start a band and call it "Morpohologised Vegetables" and perform in my local town, what's to prevent some other band in some other part of the country, or some other country, from having exactly the same name? Assuming they could prove they thought of it independently and had never heard of my band, that is. - Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See trademark. In some cases the right of publicity is also implicated. There are many examples. "They thought of it independently and had never heard of the other band" is irrelevant, though geographical location of sales and, possibly, genre might figure into it. 63.17.69.4 (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be that as it may, there have been well known bands with the same name, sometimes working at the same time. See The Heartbreakers (two bands independently led by Johnny Thunders and Tom Petty), or The Beat of which there were two (one U.S. and one U.K.). There are two bands named X: X (American band) and X (Australian band), each of which was a key founding band of the 1970's punk movements in their respective countries. --Jayron32 14:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, I am not supporting the assertion that "two bands legally cannot perform under the same name." As long as something isn't criminal, anyone can do anything they want. But in some cases people can sue you for it. That's why I provided the two links above, which give details. There could be a thousand bands called the Rolling Stones -- the only issue is, at what point would any or every one of them get sued by the Rolling Stones? As for the Beat, they were obliged to call themselves "The English Beat." Another example is Dinosaur Jr., which was originally called "Dinosaur" until encouraged to avoid possible problems via re-naming themselves. Again, there are many, many examples -- some of which actually became precedent (after protracted legal wrangling) in the relevant jurisdiction's law of trademark and right of publicity. 63.17.86.9 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engelbert Humperdink comes to mind as two solo artists with the same name, although I believe it is by design rather than co-incidence. Also they were not in the same era, the second one, real name Arnold George Dorsey, named himself after the first. Zunaid 08:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the 2nd one chose that name ? What, was the store out of "Kick Me" signs ? StuRat (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Izzard does a great stand-up routine where he imagines how Dorsey came to choose that name one afternoon with his management team...sitting in a room and throwing out all sorts of outlandish suggestions. Funny enough he makes the same assertion, that Humperdink must have got the sh!t kicked out of him at school. Zunaid 06:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Great minds think alike" ... and, so, apparently, do Eddie and I. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do producers have any incentive to inflate film budgets?

The film Troy (film) had elaborate life-sized sets built in Malta and Mexico at great expense. Yet the same visual appearance could have been obtained by building models with some electronic jiggery pokery to put the actors in them, and the audience would be have been none the wiser. Do producers have an incentive to make the budget as big as possible? For example is any of their income paid by the studio in proportion to the budget size? 92.29.150.112 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on filmmaking, but I am interested in giving my opinion anyways. For starters, a CGI generated set always looks fake, so yes the audience would have been the wiser. As for the producers' salary, I don't know if their paycheck is negotiated before filming takes place like the actors, but probably depending on the producer, if it's a big name like Jerry Bruckheimer, then I would probably assume they may get a percentage in the film's profits. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just looked up Film budgeting, and here's what it says for producers: "Film producers and executive producers are often well-paid, with a top producer earning a seven-figure salary upfront as well as bonuses and a share of the profits. (Often a producer will be given 40 percent of the net profits). For Spider-Man, producer Laura Ziskin is estimated to have been paid over $30 million." 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster's idea that the producer wants a bigger-budget movie in order to be paid more is a bit misleading. It's sort of true that the producer might get paid more if the movie's budget were US$1 million bigger, but if the budget is US$1 million bigger, the movie is a little less likely to get greenlit, and the studios haggle over the budget all the time. An expensive, extraneous scene, or an expensive scene that could be produced more cheaply (perhaps via CGI, or by shooting it in California rather than in Malta) is going to be monitored and modified or cut. As 24 says earlier, realism is important to everyone involved on most productions, and good CGI is still pretty expensive, so the Malta choice must have been deemed worthwhile on the basis of quality. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the makers of 'Troy' wanted to build Troy! If you could, you would wouldn't you? Juliankaufman (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the popularity of real or simulated studio backlots as tourist attractions, that could be some incentive for constructing a real set. The movie set for the 1960 film The Alamo was kept around until just last year as Alamo Village. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Cecil B. DeMille's films, and Cleopatra, which almost bankrupted 20th Century Fox. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is what you meant, but studios often pay out to investors, actors, directors, etc. a proportion of the film's profit. Profit being income minus costs there is incentive to inflate the film's costs, especially if you can manage to include something unconnected that the studio was going to pay for as part of the film's costs. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, if the studio was itself making a big profit from what it charged the producer to build the set, then it would have an incentive to do it that way. 89.242.46.75 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "incentives" aren't always legal, I'm amazed that no one has mentioned money laundering. (Think $10,000 toilet fixtures purchased by the Pentagon ....) 63.17.86.9 (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, they have lots of accountants who would be likely to spot that. See Hollywood accounting. I think the comments about about producers earning millions would only be for the most successful. 92.29.149.119 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Hockey

Reading the article on penalties raised a question about the netminder. It seems that the rules don't like him to leave his crease. For example, there is a penalty called Goaltender Leaving Crease: "A goaltender may not leave the vicinity of his crease during an altercation. A minor penalty will be assessed if the goaltender does so. If the altercation is in the vicinity of his crease the referee should direct the goaltender to a neutral area and the goaltender will not receive a penalty for leaving the vicinity of his crease." In the Illegal Equipment penalty description it says "..goalkeepers may not go to the bench but must have a stick carried out to them." Why do the rules force a goaltender to stay in his crease, even when a fight is going on? This seems strange, since a goaltender can be pulled and a sixth skater can replace him. •• Fly by Night (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pertinent qualification is "during an altercation". They probably don't want the goalie to get involved (see Ron Hextall#Philadelphia years). Not that different from being penalized for leaving the bench. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basis of this may be that if a goalie were to get involved in a fight, it would be really unfair due to the amount of padding goalies wear. Aaronite (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could be part of it, but I think in general it's that the goalie is a special position on the team and the rules are different for him. (Note: If my knowledge of rules is out of date, feel free to jump in and fix.) For one thing, the goalie is never sent to the penalty box. If the goalie draws a penalty, a regular player will be sent to the box for the required time. A goalie could draw a 2-minute minor for a typical rules infraction such as delay of game or roughing or something like that. If a goalie gets penalized for fighting, it's a 5-minute infraction. And if he's penalized twice, he's done for the game - dismissed, and another goalie is brought in. That situation rarely occurs, and explicitly keeping goalies out of fights is probably intended to make the chance of a goalie ejection even less likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Regarding the stick, typically the only time the goalie goes to the bench is when there's a time-out or when he's being pulled for a sixth attacker. The goalie is also not allowed to participate in play past the red line. Those rules lessen the chance of turning the game into a farce by having the goalie way out of position - because when a player (including the goalie) breaks or loses a stick, play continues until the next time-out is called (e.g. for offsides or icing or a penalty). During a time-out, I'm sure the goalie could go to the bench to get a replacement stick. But not while play is on - a teammate would have to bring him a new stick. Regular players, of course, can stop by the bench and get a new stick while play continues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the NHL (but not international play) they have actually greatly limited goalie movement, besides the rule noted above about goalies leaving the crease to participate in fights; they also can no longer play the puck outside of a predefined area (I believe this is basically the crease and the area behind the net). This was specifically done to open up play; under the old NHL rules (still in effect internationally), the goalie could play the puck anywhere; they would often come far out of the crease to pick up an uncontested puck, and this would prevent the attacking team from scrambling to get said puck; if they did, the goalie would just scoop up the puck, retreat to the crease, and cover up. Now goalies can't come out of their area to play a puck, which means that the attacking team has more scoring opportunities. --Jayron32 01:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I recall in less recent times in the NHL where a goalie would be all over the place in the defensive zone, and sometimes it would come back to haunt him if he came out to play the puck some distance from the goal, if an opponent took it from him and skated in on an empty net. They also restricted delaying tactics by the goalies. I recall times when things might be getting hot-and-heavy, and the goalie might purposely whack the puck up into the seats to force a stoppage of play. I think they call delay of game for that kind of thing now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They call a delay-of-game penalty if anyone does it, purposely or not, it's kind of dumb. Also, the defined area is sort of a trapezoidal shape behind the net, there are lines painted on the ice for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, there were lots of stalling tactics that have been curbed by these rules and help the game to move along. Hockey has constantly tinkered with the fine points of its rules. In the early days, you couldn't pass across your own blue line. The game then was like soccer with sticks. It's a bit faster-paced now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys (and girls?). So the netminder can't leave his crease during a fight because if he were to get involved in the fight then he would have an unfair advantage due to all of his pads? That sounds plausible on the face of it. But I remember watching a game where an attacking player started to fight with the netminder. He totally kicked the netminders ass! The netminder had such limited movement that he was a sitting duck. The netminder could only just raise his arms above shoulder level to defend himself; never mind getting enough momentum to land any substantial blows. Secondly, are we saying that the netminder can't go to the bench to retrieve a stick so that he can't play the puck further up the ice? But I thought he could only play the puck in his crease and behind the goal line anyway (I'm English so we don't have the trapezoidal zone behind the net like in the NHL). So if he went for a stick and played the puck near the centre line then it'd be a penalty. If he left an open goal and the other team scored then he would look like an idiot. But to legislate against the netminder being brain-dead seems a bit strong. There must be another reason. •• Fly by Night (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for this on google, a little bit, and couldn't find anything on the rationale. Somehow my misty memory is telling me that this might have to do with Patrick Roy and other goalies who were getting a little too aggressive, coupled with the NHL's desire to contain fisticuffs - for example, the relatively recent rule that there's a lengthy penalty for the third player to enter into a fight. That tends to keep fights confined to two players, whom the refs let slug it out for awhile until they're tired, and then step in and send the both of them off for 5-minute majors. And it's fairly clear they don't want the goalies to be anything but goalies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But all of the penalties to stop fighting are already in place. Why have an extra set to keep netminders out of it? There is some reason for the netminders' movements to be restricted and I don't think that it's to keep them out of fights: they are soft targets if anything. They're so big, slow, round and heavy that they wouldn't stand a chance against a normal player. There just doesn't seem to be any logic. Besides that, thee rule about not being able to go and get a new stick when theirs has broken has nothing to do with fights: it's about limiting movement. WHY? •• Fly by Night (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of a mystery. Maybe you'll have better luck googling the subject than I did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google's a lottery. That's why I put the question here: hoping that people in the know might share their knowledge. If you don't know then that's fair enough. •• Fly by Night (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This time I googled [nhl rules history] and one of the items that came up[4] includes a lengthy history of the rules, but does not explain why the lines around the goal were changed (other than obviously to increase the scoring) and does not mention this specific goalie situation at all. I added [goaltender] to the search, and came up with this blog referencing Marty Brodeur,[5] which contains an embedded snide comment which might nonetheless provide an additional clue: "brodeur handling the puck was not the reason for the trapezoid rule... the nhl's rules on goaltenders leaving the crease and getting hit/checked were vague and uneven, hence the rule." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's starting to make more sense. After all, if you make contact with the netminder without trying to get out of the way they you get an interference penalty. Maybe the rules aren't too cohesive and lead to the anomaly that checking the netminder anywhere on the ice would lead to an interference call? •• Fly by Night (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]