Entertainment desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 27

Definitive Three Musketeers film version?

T3M has been featured in quite a few films! Is there one in particular that's held up above all others as a definitive treatment? Or do they all have their own shortcomings? The Masked Booby (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with many filmed versions of many novels, they all fall short in some fundemental way. Most of them preserve the basic framework of the story, and broadly adhere to the basic character types (poor farm boy goes to big city to join the Musketeers, and elite bodyguard of the King. Ends up getting stuck with a trio of nutty Musketeers each with their own personality quirks. Conflict with the Cardinal, missing crown jewels, love triangles, and hilarity ensue). Every movie version I have seen, however, plays pretty fast-and-loose with the plot details, so while they all agree in general terms with the plot of the book, they all take their own dramatic license in many areas. I would say to pick, say, a few versions from each era, and watch them all in short order to compare them. I've seen 3 or so myself, but never in close succession, but it may be a fun exercise! --Jayron32 03:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, I'm inclined to go with the 1948 version (Lana Turner alone makes it worth watching), though the 1973 adaptation also has its merits. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All a city's teams reaching their respective championships

The Blackhawks elimination from the playoffs last night and the Bulls games in their playoffs put this question into my head... Have all of a city's major sports teams all won their respective championships in the same year? I'm thinking US/Canada here but would be interested in other countries as well. As far as a definition for "major", I don't really have one but I'm pretty much thinking of baseball/hockey/(American) football/basketball for the US/Canada. And for the jokers, I'm also not counting cities that have only one major team (if there is one). Oh, and I don't have a solid definition in my head as to how I'd classify teams such as the New England Patriots since they don't have a named home city like the Chicago Bears or the Green Bay Packers. Dismas|^(talk) 12:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could include Green Bay with Milwaukee and New England with Boston, as it's basically common fan bases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 1980-81, all four Philadelphia teams reached their sport's finals: the Phillies won the 1980 World Series over the Kansas City Royals in baseball; the Eagles lost Super Bowl XV to the Oakland Raiders (played in 1981, but the regular season was in 1980) in football; the 76ers lost the 1980 NBA Finals to the Los Angeles Lakers in basketball; and the Flyers lost the 1980 Stanley Cup Finals to the New York Islanders in hockey. It hasn't happened since. --Xuxl (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's safe to say it's never happened in Chicago! The last time the Cubs won the Series, the NHL, NFL and NBA didn't exist yet. Now, are you talking strictly professional, or are you bringing college football and basketball into it also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The White Sox did win the 2005 World Series, but the other Chicago teams were not doing particularly well at the time. The 1917 White Sox Championship team predates the NFL and NBA, just like the Cubs' last winner. --Xuxl (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question seems to contradict the heading, as "reaching" the championship could mean "getting to" the Super Bowl, whereas the question indicates "winning it", so I'm going with that. I did some quick googling and didn't find anything. This is an interesting question, which could use some further definition. What's needed is a table with the years down the left side and the 4 major sports across the top. Once filled in, look for any year in which 2 or more teams won, which in itself would be interesting even if it's not an across-the-board sweep. It also gets complicated for seasons that cross years (which is 3 of the 4 sports now) and for cities that have 2 teams in the same sport, in which the OP's premise, taken literally, can't possibly happen. That is, the Mets and Yankees played the Series in 2000, but only one of them could win. If he re-cloaks it as the city winning a sports championship, then it could work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1986 was a pretty good calandar year for Boston teams: The New England Patriots lost Super Bowl XX to start the year, the Boston Celtics won the 1986 NBA Finals and the Boston Red Sox lost the 1986 World Series. Unfortunately, the Bruins got booted in the first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs that year, and would have to wait until 1988 to make the Cup Finals. But, not a bad run overall. --Jayron32 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a good year for the State of New York in 1994: The Buffalo Bills lose Super Bowl XXVIII, the New York Rangers win the Stanely Cup, and the New York Knicks lose the NBA Finals. Unfortunately there was no World Series that year; and geographically, Washington DC is closer to NYC than Buffalo is, but the State of New York put a team in every contested championship that year. --Jayron32 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1]:" New York City won all three (football, baseball, basketball) in 1969. The Jets beat the Colts for the Super Bowl. The Mets won the World Series. The Knicks won the NBA Finals." Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you measure these things:

In the fall of 1968 and into early 1969, the Jets won the Super Bowl. In the summer of 1969, the Mets won the World Series. In the NBA season of 1969-70, the Knicks won. (The Celtics had won in the springs of 1968 and 1969).

In the summer of 1927, the Yankees won the World Series. In the fall, the Giants won the NFL championship (it's debatable how "major" the NFL was at that point). In the winter of 1927-28, the Rangers won the Stanley Cup. In the summer of 1928, the Yankees won the Series again.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 1948, the Indians won the World Series, the Browns went 14-0 and won the All-America Football Conference and the Cleveland Barons won the American Hockey League's Calder Cup, which was a big deal when the NHL had only six teams. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying a non-US perspective, I looked up List of English football champions, List of official County Championship winners (cricket) and English Premiership (rugby union). Rugby Union has only had official champions since 1988, which makes the potential list shorter. The best bet would be London, but it seems the London Wasps never won the same year as both a London football club (Arsenal or Chelsea) and Surrey or Middlesex took the title. Looking earlier, randomly for example in 1954, there are London teams winning in both football and cricket, but IMO just two competitions isn't worth mentioning. I don't know if any Englishmen would suggest a different sport that should be looked at, things are far from as clear-cut as the US concept of four major pro sport leagues. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby has a north/south divide in England. Rugby league dominates in the north, and Rugby union in the south, with hardly anywhere having decent teams in both codes. One city has won three of the four in the same season – Leeds in 1969 (Leeds United F.C., Leeds RLFC and Yorkshire CCC, who play most of their matches in Leeds). A quadruple is unthinkable. No rugby league champion has ever come from the midlands or south, and the rugby union title has only once been won by a northern team. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual baseball feat

Last season a player for the San Francisco Giants, Darren Ford, scored a run in a major league game before ever having an official plate appearance. He was inserted into the game as a pinch runner and ended up scoring the game-winning run. I've been searching without success for other times this has happened in the majors. Are there any web sites that track this sort of statistic? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more common than you think, as a lot of players get their first taste of action as a pinch-runner. Here are a few examples off the top of my head of players who scored their first run before getting their first plate appearance: Tim Raines [2]; Al Newman [3]; Jay Loviglio [4], Don Hopkins [5] and Mel Kerr [6]. Of course, the absolute champion in Herb Washington [7], baseball's only full-time pinch-runner, who never had a plate appearance or played the field in his two-year career, but scored 33 runs and stole 31 bases. I'm not sure how you could find a full list however. --Xuxl (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Retrosheet's record for Darren Ford:[8] Knowing already what he did, it's easy to track down on the daily listings, as he was strictly a pinch runner in all but one game. But it's not evident to me, offhand, how one would track down all such occurrences, without downloading the entire database and doing some programming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]