Entertainment desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 3

Simpsons (?) actor in KFC commercials

Who is the Simpsons (?) actor (whose scalp is bald in the middle) who appears in some KFC commercials? 128.2.246.10 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The major voice talent in the Simpsons is:

Dan Castellaneta (Homer)
Julie Kavner (Marge)
Nancy Cartwright (Bart)
Yeardley Smith (Lisa)
Hank Azaria (most of the other voices)
Harry Shearer (the ones that Hank Azaria doesn't do)

The only one of these that is noticibly bald is Dan Castallaneta. --Jayron32 03:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article KFC notes that starting in the late 1990's, the Colonel in the ads was voiced by Randy Quaid, who is neither a Simpsons actor (won't guarantee he hasn't appeared in at least one episode; at this point who hasn't...), nor noticably bald. --Jayron32 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say he's balding.... Dismas|^(talk) 03:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voices (singing and spoken) in Broadway plays - pre-recorded?

Last month we saw West Side Story on Broadway. Tonight we saw the touring company of Grease. In West Side Story, only the top two female players were wearing microphones. In Grease, Teen Angel was using a hand-held microphone. Otherwise the other actors/singers were not using a microphone as far as we could tell. Are these voices live or pre-recorded? Or are they miking them in ways we can't see? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stage mics are usually sufficient, especially for choruses/choirs that don't have individual parts. There are also a wide array of small, wireless mics which can be quite hard to spot if you don't know what you are looking for. --Jayron32 03:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these stage mics on the person or somewhere where the audience can't see them (e.g. over the stage or at the base of the stage)? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, a stage mic is on the stage somewhere. They are often hanging from the ceiling on wires, or may be placed in various unobtrusive places around the stage. The whole point in allowing a play to be an immersive experience is to make the technology as unobtrusive as possible; Broadway plays have large budgets and expertise with which to do to. They often have the best possible equipment availible; you'd be surprised how good small mics can be, or how well hidden they can be. --Jayron32 05:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. The two main females in West Side Story were wearing mics that were clearly visible - worn sort of like telephone headphones. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can be very small. See Lavalier microphone.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in the few professional productions I have assisted with, we used a wireless mic no bigger than a nickel, and was often attached under the hat/headpeiece, or under the hair (via spirit gum). This being a few years ago, there may be better ways and smaller mics now. ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for song

Looking for a german song which includes the lyrics "leuchtturm [lichtturm?] leuchtturm leutchturm an der see". I'm pretty certain these are the lyrics, but google's not helping me out. It's a male singer, a very poppy rock song. It's been played on www.radioeins.de a few times in the last few weeks. Any suggestions? 141.14.245.218 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK guys, I found it myself. "Leuchte, Leuchte, Leuchtturm" by Zeimzeit. Cheers. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite Drink at the Belmont Stakes Horse Race

While the Kentucky Derby is well-known for the "mint Julep", and the Preakness is often associated with the "Black-Eyed Susan" when it comes to alcoholic beverage favorites, Whsat is the drink, which is associated with the Belmont Stakes, the 3rd Leg of the "Triple-Crown"???173.18.126.179 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the first hit on Google, the white carnation was replaced as the favored drink in 1998 by the Belmont breeze. -- kainaw ™ 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

snorkeling w surface inner tube w clear plastic window

snorkeling w surface inner tube w clear plastic window w glasses snorkeling w perscription masks is prohibitively costly this would be cheap easy alternate if it works well ?? can it be done with good results ?? can you maek your own snorkel viewing tube where can you get equipment ~~ non exists on web ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.46.133 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean looking through one of these?

As our underwater vision article and diving mask article say, an ordinary diving mask, without a prescription lens, makes everything appear about 33% bigger and 25% nearer. This is enough to help a lot of people who, as surface dwellers, ordinarily wear glasses; but there are many divers with worse vision for whom it's not going to be sufficient, and those people eventually decide to order a prescription lens for their diving mask. (I'll trust any visiting opticians to provide more detail on how bad one's vision has to be before the prescription lens is usually required.) Your question is very hard to understand, and you are going to have to describe your invention more clearly. If by "snorkel viewing tube" you actually mean a diving snorkel, the first problem is figuring out a way of holding it against the diver's eye without water gushing in from the sides and filling it up. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the questions is hard to understand... for example what is meant by the "w" that appears between many words? Astronaut (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"w" = "with". Bielle (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hold'em blinds

In Texas hol'em, when the player to the left of the dealer goes out of the game, what happens to the deal and the blinds? Does the deal move to the next active player? Do the blinds move and can a player be skipped for the small or large blind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.64.0.72 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "go out" you mean "fold the hand", the blinds are treated like any other bet - i.e. a person who folds forfeits any claim to them. If by "go out" you mean "leave the game completely, due to insufficient funds", then a person who goes out is usually treated like he has left the table completely. That is, if one of five players goes out, then the game proceeds like there were only the remaining four active players at the table, and the fifth player did not exist. Slightly more complicated is if a player still has money at the start of a hand, but an insufficient amount to cover the blind completely. I believe most of the time this forces the player to go "all in" at the blind, with all the associated procedures for an "all in" bet. I don't believe that the next person is required to make up the difference, although all of the above is subject to change based on tournament and house rules. -- 174.21.225.115 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deal just passes to the left, but blinds will be altered such that all players have both a small and large blind. Using names will help clarify: Suppose Abel is dealing, Baker is to his left, then Charles, then Daniel, then Edward, then Frank. The hand is over and Baker is eliminated. Deal passes from Abel to Charles, the next player to the left. Ordinarily Charles would owe nothing in the blind, but since he hasn't paid a small blind he is required to play one now. Ordinarily Daniel plays a small blind, but hasn't yet played a large blind so he posts a large blind on this hand. Edward would normally have a large blind and plays a large blind. Thus nobody skips a blind. The following hand, Daniel is dealing and must play a small blind. Edward plays the normal small blind, and Frank the normal large blind. The following hand, back to normal. anonymous6494 03:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with anonymous6494. In all live games I've been in, the deal remains with Abel, Charles posts the small blind, and Daniel the big, so that nobody gets to avoid their blinds. Here's a somewhat confusing explanation (see rule 1b: Dead button). In online games (on Pokerstars at least), it's done differently; the deal passes to Charles, Daniel posts the small blind (avoiding the big blind entirely), and Edward the big. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Betting (poker)#When a player in the blinds leaves the game, there are three options. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Hard Day's Night

Would anybody know who played the blonde girl in the nightclub seen talking to John Lennon with her boots on the table? She's not listed in the credits. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you checked this listing at IMDb? It contains lots of uncredited actors and actresses that might fit your question, such as Maggie London as "Girl at Disco (Uncredited)". Kingsfold (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like her! Thanks, Kingsfold. Her daughter is the actress Olivia d'Abo (by Manfred Mann singer Mike d'Abo) and they do bear a strong resemblance to one another. It also said she was a Vidal Sassoon model. I recall having seen her besides the cameo in the Beatles film. You've solved the mystery; once more, thank you!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. :-) Kingsfold (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Williams A Night At The Met object on cover

What is the object Robin Williams is holding on his A Night at the Met album? It's really no clearer on the CD than in WP's picture. It looks kind of like a brass eyeball on a stick, perhaps about the size of a softball. It isn't his microphone, as the same photo clearly shows he's wearing a clip-on mic. No reference to this object is on the recording itself, although it's possible it was edited with some jokes removed that relied on visual elements that wouldn't work on an audio recording. So what is that thing? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks kind of like a single maraca to me, but that's based solely on apperance in the image. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This eBay listing has a photograph of a vinyl copy, in case it helps anyone make out the object. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like a sceptor, or an ornate cane or maybe a type of incensor or censer. --Jayron32 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate locations for the Giants, Dodgers in California?

The ballpark in which the San Francisco Giants play right now seems so much better than what I've read Candlestick Park was like. I know the mayor book Horace Stoneham there almost right away, to Candlestick Point, when he met with the officials there, but did he ever look at other parts of San Francisco? Where else might the Giants have put their park if they moved West? Would they have even looked at, say, Fremont or San Jose (or Oakland), where Bay Area clubs have tolked about putting parks? What about Chavez Rabine and the Dodgers?

thanks in advance.Somebody or his brother (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Giants played in Seals Stadium for two years, before Candlestick was finished. They had originally considered moving to Minneapolis, but the Dodgers convinced them to move to San Francisco to continue the rivalry that had existed when both teams were in New York. The Dodgers considered Wrigley Field (Los Angeles) at first, but decided against it, and played at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum until Dodger Stadium was built. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if Stoneham learns just how bad the weather is before deciding to go with the stadium there, would he have just expanded Seals' Stadium and used it for longer? I guess it sounds like they might have, it sounds like it was expanded for big league use a little - though the would have had to expand it more than they did (22.9K would have been very, very low).Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They tore down the left field wall at Seals Stadium and installed some bleachers to expand the capacity a bit. Anything beyond that would have required a significant engineering effort. The Oaks' park in Oakland, if it were even still standing by 1958, would have been rejected as too far away from San Francisco as well as being too small - and possibly, though I'm not certain, having been made of wood. I have a vague recollection that political schmoozing had something to do with the location of Candestick Park, but I would have to research that. There were some claims that if they had built it at the other end of its property, Candlestick Hill would have helped shelter it from the wind. As for the Dodgers, they would have had similar problems trying to operate in L.A.'s Wrigley Field, which was even smaller than the too-small Ebbets Field had been. The L.A. Coliseum's layout was pretty much an abomination for baseball, but it brought plenty of money in, which certainly didn't hurt the Dodgers' ability to continue beomg a perennial contender. Dodger Stadium took 4 years to finish due to various political battles. The Dodgers hadn't really expected to occupy the Coliseum that long. The Dodgers had also looked at the Rose Bowl, with the idea of reconfiguring it to hold a normal-shaped baseball field, but that plan was rejected. The other possible temporary site in L.A. could have been Gilmore Field, but it was also too small for major league ball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had wondered about Gilmore Field. Baseball Bugs, do you know if the Giants ever considered Kezar Stadium? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oaks Park (which was actually in Emeryville, not Oakland), was torn down in 1957, so it wasn't available by then. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. The Oaks had moved elsewhere before the Giants came to town. Oaks Park sat on what is now Pixar Studios, not that that matters here. My sourcebooks on the subject don't say anything about Kezar being considered. In fact, it's coming back to me a bit: the mayor of San Francisco talked Stoneham into moving to San Fran with the promise of building a new stadium, using a construction company that happened to be close to the mayor, and also on land whose development was beneficial to the politicians. The Dodgers didn't have quite such an easy time getting there own stadium built, but it was worth the wait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was, and still is, a great deal of controversy over the construction of Chavez Ravine, involving the forced removal of a number of poor families who were living there at the time. See Battle of Chavez Ravine. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's technically known as "pulling the rug out from under" the people there. Based on that article, it's unlikely anything besides Chavez Ravine was ever seriously considered as a permanent site. I didn't see anything in the article about "O'Malleyburgers". That minor brouhaha came later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]