Entertainment desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 17

The main characters of SpongeBob SquarePants

According to a page of SpongeBob SquarePants series creator Stephen Hillenburg's series bible - respective page shown here: http://cartoonician.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/cast.jpg - the main characters are apparently supposed to be SpongeBob (of course), Squidward, Patrick, Mr. Krabs, Sandy, Pearl, and Plankton (if that is him). Am I correct? Are these the main characters of SpongeBob? Mattdillon87 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suppose Pearl to be a main, she would be more of a minor. The rest. Yes. I suppose things change with each season; Sandy Cheeks used to be prominent, now not so muchBonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Zone on videotape

Some episodes of The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) were shot on videotape instead of film. These look and sound very different. What makes them look so different? Lenses? Editing? What makes them sound so different? The videotape ones sound like they picked up a lot of ambient sound that the film episodes did not. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that group of episodes, which I guess was done as some kind of experiment. In one of them, Art Carney somehow becomes Santa Claus. Those shows might be on kinescope rather than tape. But if you think about it, videotape in general looks different on TV than film does, or at least it did before high def and digitized reproduction of films came along. I don't know the technical way to explain it, but videotape or even kinescope looks "live", while film looks like film. This was implicitly acknowledged in the old HBO series, "The Larry Sanders Show", whose show-within-a-show was a parody of the Johnny Carson show. Everything that the in-the-show TV audience would see looked "live", as it was shown on tape or some digitized format; whereas everything else in the program was on film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that some were on videotape, but it might have been Kinescope. At any rate, it was shot with a TV camera instead of a film camera. I saw one of the shows again last night. It didn't have closeups and reaction shots the way film episodes do. Also, with film they edit whereas with the TV camera they seem to do it more live, with edits done by switching from camera to camera rather than a physical edit. Also the sound is different, as if the microphone isn't as close to the people or isn't as directional. That is just what it seems to me - I'd like someone that knows more about it to weigh in. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind we are talking about 1960 technology. Video tape editing was very primitive back then and could not be done as cleanly as film. Editing basically had to be done immediately on the spot, which basically, as you said, switching from camera to camera rather than a physical edit. And yes, they were stuck with the 1960 technology of microphones, and they could not sufficiently dub or re-record the audio as they could with film. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the difference that video tape is cheap, but subject to distortion and lacking dynamic range, while film can fade or be scratched, but doesn't stretch? μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but there are more differences than that when comparing the film episodes to the videotape episodes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK Championship (snooker)

I am non able to fix the following problem concerning the subject page: > > looking at the page, the last line concerning the 2012 result appears empty; if you edit and save, correctly the line reports Mark Selby, Shaun Murphy and the 10- 6 result. But if you then leave the page and go back to it, again the last line appears empty! and so on and on. > > Can you please fix it? > > Many thanks and regards. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.200.74 (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK Championship (snooker) looks good to me. Perhaps it's an issue with the cache on your computer. You might try a reboot. StuRat (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal sideline coaching in tennis tournaments

From what I gather, "coaching from the sideline" is prohibited in most top-level ATP and WTA tournaments (such as grand slams. That doesn't men it doesn't happen, obviously - apparently, secret signals from coaches to players are all too common. I gather the player can be penalized if they are being illegally coached.

My question is: Does the chair umpire have the power to order a coach breaking this rule to leave the players' box / stands? I know in football, the referee has the power to expel a inappropriately-behaving coach from the technical area. Is there a similar power in the tennis rules?

Also, if a coach breaks the rule, can their coaching accreditation (for future tournaments) be stripped from them? Bernard Tomic's dad-cum-coach once ordered his son to walk off the court in protest at an umpire's decision (a very serious rule breach). How was he allowed to keep his accreditation? What would be the disciplinary process for a tennis coach, as opposed to a player? 58.111.175.170 (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a coach was ordered to leave a match in the recent past, although the only one I can find at the moment is Marian Bartoli telling her father (who is also her coach) to leave the court at Wimbledon in 2011. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Women's Tennis Association 2012 Official Rulebook page 269 (PDF page 271): "In circumstances that are flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of the Tournament, or are singularly egregious, the Supervisor/Referee shall have the authority to relocate the position of a coach if there is reasonable belief that coaching is occurring, or the Supervisor/Referee may order the coach to be removed from the match site or Tournament site and upon his/her failure to comply with such order, may declare an immediate default of such Player." PrimeHunter (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella's Shoe

Is it possible for a "perfect-fitting" shoe to slip off? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Okay, I'll bite] Yes. It shouldn't just fall off, of course, but it has to be removable (or the fit would be very far from "perfect"), and a number of plausible scenarios could accidentally mimic the forces needed to remove it deliberately. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being made of inflexible glass instead of leather might figure into the story. Even though the slipper fit (i.e. was the right size and width), I doubt very much if it was designed precisely in the shape of her foot, unless she had pointed feet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was certain that the slippers weren't glass but crystal, however I've just found this translation] of the Hans Christian Andersen text in which the Fairy Godmother says, "they are of glass, made by the fairies." Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the claim on the linked website, Cinderella is not by Andersen but by the Grimm Brothers. 31.54.249.205 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly rigid shoe couldn't fit perfectly. That's because you'd need to stretch it a bit when putting it on and taking it off (the ball of the foot is wider than the arch). So, it would have to be rather loose to get it on, which would also tend to make it fall off. Rigid shoes, like Dutch wooden shoes, are rare for this reason and because of the lack of padding, and are mostly decorative, not functional. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've never been to the Netherlands then. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your claim that wooden shoes are in widespread use there today ? StuRat (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I thought it was just a stereotype, but surprisingly, they are often worn as leisure shoes, rather like flip flops. They're waterproof too, so Dutch people wear them instead of wellingtons. I found some pictures on the net: [1] [2] [3] [4] Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, een Klompenrace (a clog race). Alansplodge (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they name the race after the shoes implies that there is something unusual about them. For example, a sack race is so named because people don't normally race in sacks. According to this site: [5], there are 3 million wooden shoes made each year, but most of those are sold to tourists as collector's items. That site does say some 5000 people wear them for their jobs as farmers or nursery workers, where they deal with muck and mud. StuRat (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw quite a lot of Dutch people wearing them when I visited Zeeland in 1999. Not everyone by any stretch, but enough to conclude that it wasn't a tourist gimmick. I'm not lying to you StuRat. It only took a few seconds to find Google images of Dutch people wearing clogs in everyday situations. The race was included to show that it is possible to run in them, which is relevant. It also proves that lots of Dutch people own a pair and they don't wear out in a hurry. Finally a reference; "Despite the fact that most Dutch no longer wear klompen for everyday use, clogs remain popular by people working in their gardens, farms and by planters. Some of the Dutch also consider wearing clogs as being healthy for the wearers' feet."[6] Alansplodge (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure some people do wear them, but more out of tradition than pure practicality. After all, we have rubber boots if you want waterproof footwear, and they have more padding. If wooden shoes were really advantageous, then they would have spread throughout the world. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be extremely careful of that sort of blanket statement if I were you, StuRat. For example: there's plenty of good evidence that certain diets and lifestyles are FAR healthier than the typical Western diet/lifestyle, and they contribute to longevity that puts our "three score and ten" in the shade. It's decidedly advantageous to be more active and more healthy for longer, than not. But have these spread throughout the world? I don't see much of that happening. But I do see MacDonalds and KFC spreading throughout the world. The health advantage of such food is questionable, to say the least; yet the queues have never been longer. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand about that fairy tale (or the Disney adaptation at least) is why the prince would search for a woman whom the shoes fit perfectly. I've seen women in special occasions (like weddings) wear shoes so uncomfortable shoes that it literally made their shoes bleed in a few hours. Those women also know this in advance and they bring other shoes to change into after the occasion, and band-aids to patch up their feet. Cinderella clearly wore a decorative glass shoe that the princess specifically stepped off when she left the ball because she couldn't bear wearing it anymore. – b_jonas 18:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, having small feet was highly valued in women to such a degree that the Chinese would bind and cripple their women to achieve small feet. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be the spoil-sport. It was not glass, but fur (Russian squirrel fur, to be precise). The "glass slipper" story is the result of a mistranslation.

From Cinderella: It is thought that the slipper was made of vair (a russian squirrel, petit-gris) rather than glass. Many tales are relayed by word of mouth then translated. It is likely that the word "vair" which sounds like "verre" in French, was taken to mean glass rather than fur. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Snopes the mistranslation theory may itself be mistaken. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're entitled to their opinion, of course. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

trance and prog house

I'd like to know: why is it that Trance artists such as This and This who had a unique sound from the 90's to the mid 2000's now have a more Progressive house style? it seems to me like many Trance artists do a more Progressive House style that makes them have some similar qualities in their newer songs, so wouldn't that technicly make them progressive artists now? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say because mainstream house music shifted from funky house to electro house around the middle of the last decade, and electro house is more similar to trance, so there was a lot of cross-pollination (deadmau5 is the prime example). I would not describe Tiesto's attempts at being David Guetta as "progressive" though. - filelake shoe  14:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. shame, tiesto did well, but trying to imitate Guetta i must say is not the smartest of moves for someone who's supposed to be the best dj in the world, know what i mean? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the one?

Ok, here's a toughie, but I hope someone's memory is as eclectic as mine. There's a movie scene I've had in my head for a long time. A beautiful woman is looking to hire a private pilot, and she goes to a hangar in search of one. She spots a likely looking guy who's doing maintenance on a plane, and she calls out to him "Are you the one?". Remember, these people are total strangers at this point. He interprets this as a flirty opening from a pretty girl, and responds in kind, but I don't remember exactly what his words were. But I'm certain of her words, because it's an unusual question to ask of a stranger. That's all I remember of the scene.

My brain tells me it's from The Other Side of Midnight (1977), the girl was Marie-France Pisier, and the pilot was Dennis Cole. That movie did involve a private plane, but Dennis Cole wasn't in it (the movie). So, either it was a different movie, probably not involving Pisier – or it wasn't Cole at all - or perhaps both. I'm 99% positive the guy was blond like Cole, but it may not have been Cole himself.

If it wasn't The Other Side of Midnight, I'd love to identify the movie and the actors.

Does this ring any bells? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking at the IMDb "I Need to Know" board? I had a title found for me earlier today, in fact, but they're almost preternatural with how quickly they can come up with answers. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might try that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]