Entertainment desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

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.

June 20

Unknown Arcade Game

So i have a faint memory of an arcade game we had at our old bowling alley. You could play as a godzilla type character, a robot thing...like i said, faint. But you had to travel through cities causing destruction until you got to the boss battle, and it goes on like that. (and no it wasnt Rampage). If anyone has any clue please let me know. the juggresurection ^{(>-.-(Vಠ_ಠ)} 04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be King of the Monsters from SNK. --McDoob AU 93 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, i had alot of fun playing this as a kid. Next stop: coolrom.com :P the juggresurection ^{(>-.-(Vಠ_ಠ)} 04:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pogo games has a similar game online, PoppaZoppa, here. It's free with ads, or ad-free, with a subscription. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In poker, how are ties handled ?

Let's say the two hands are:

A♦ K♦ Q♦ J♦ 10♦

A♣ K♣ Q♣ J♣ 10♣

Who wins ? StuRat (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You go by suit rank of the highest card. This is normally spades beats hearts; beats clubs; beats diamonds. But black diamonds like yours might be special. See High card by suit. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but μηδείς is incorrect. In poker, suits have no rank. This would simply be a tie, and the players would split the pot equally. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're both wrong. The players tie, but the house always wins. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With hands like these, the maximum rake would have been reached quite early in the round. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I am not aware of any UN treaties or natural laws regarding rank for you two to be making absolute statements. There are house rules. The one I gave is a standard one--and I didn't write the article I linked to. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there are house rules. The link you gave says "Most poker games do not rank suits" - which means that, in most cases, the pairs of hands StuRat provided would be tied, period. Then it says "No standard ranking of suits exists for all poker games". So, it's possible that the order of suits you gave could apply under the rules of a certain house that uses a ranking, but it's completely arbitrary what the ranking is, or even whether there's a ranking at all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, correct, that's what house rules mean, although "by convention" is a probably better term than "arbitrary". And when a rank is used it's most often the one I gave (at least where I live), which is why I said "normally" in my first post. (Although you contradict yourself when you say "most cases" and then "tied period.") If I had substantially disagreed with the article I linked to I would have used another one. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, have you actually encountered any forms of poker where suits are ranked? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction there. In most poker games, it's treated as a tie and that is the end of the matter - in those games. This is almost diametrically in conflict with your opening response "You go by suit rank of the highest card". That is true only in those games that rank suits, which is the minority of games. But your response reads as if it's a universal rule for all games. It's patently not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly OR here, but I have never played in, nor seen (either live or on television), a poker game that ranks suits. Perhaps it is a house rule somewhere, but this is literally the first time I have heard of such a rule. I have learned something, thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I really supposed to believe that when I said that one ranking was normal I really meant universal? Or that it was necessary to explain that if you don't rank suits there is no ranking? Or that I linked to a stub which just by chance (1 in 24, btw) used the same ranking of suits I learned as a kid? In any case, I am an American, so I win. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In every poker tournament I've ever seen, the hand in the OP would be a split pot. I've never heard of suit mattering on modern poker. Shadowjams (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Medeis and their friends are free to invent any rules they want, and can even give it any name they want, under any recognizable form of poker among just about any other context, poker suits are not ranked (some games do rank suits, like Bridge). Tie hands are truly tied, and the pot is split. I have played a lot of poker in a lot of contexts with a lot of different people for probably longer than some of the people who regularly appear here have been alive. I have never played a single hand of poker where the suits mattered. --Jayron32 02:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, the only time the word "universal" previously appeared in this thread was in my post, where I was rebutting your initial answer that "You go by suit rank of the highest card". That was the universal-sounding statement I objected to. You added that "normally spades beats hearts; beats clubs; beats diamonds", which left the impression that, while the exact ranking might be a matter for the house, in any given game there will always be some ranking that is used in these situations. I never claimed that you said one particular ranking always applies, because you did not make such a statement. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I have already said is clear enough. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just to get really complicated, the ranking of the suits in the game of bridge, from high to low is spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs, with no-trump (which is not a suit) out-ranking everything. Bielle (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks everyone. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

High-profile actors in voice-only roles

When they started using big name stars for voice roles (back in the '70s, I guess), it was always presented as "featuring the voices of ………". Now, it's evolved to "starring ………".

That makes sense in an obvious capitalistic sense, in that the actors will probably only agree to participate these days if their billing suggests no less an involvement than that of someone actually acting in a normal visible live-action sense (even though it's patently way less).

But doesn't it sort of degrade the meaning of the verb "to star". If there was a live-action movie in which one role is for a character who is never seen and whose voice is only ever heard from an adjoining room or over a telephone, the person supplying that voice could hardly claim to be a star of the movie, unless it was so designed that their incorporeal voice dominated the story line. I've never heard of a movie like that, but I suppose it would be possible. I sort of doubt the actor supplying that voice would be eligible to be nominated for an Oscar for acting, but I could be completely wrong on that score.

So how can they make these claims of "starring" when it comes to cartoons and such like? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's to stop them? Wiktionary defines "to star" as "To appear as a featured performer or headliner"; so put their name in the ad is to define the person right then and there as starring in the movie. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discussion the last time this came up. --Viennese Waltz 23:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's to stop them? Well, obviously nobody and nothing is stopping them, which is why it happens, which is why I'm asking a question about this questionable practice. When applied to animated productions, that definition could at least as much apply to the animators who spend thousands of hours producing the finished result, as to those who supply the voices, who might do all their work in a week or less. Thanks for the link. I was merely the ultimoverbalist in that particular discussion so the details didn't remain in my head. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billing of actors is always a big deal contractually. And it's nothing new. One good example is the 1950s TV sitcom The Honeymooners.[1] Note the billing: "Jackie Gleason ... The Honeymooners ... with the stars, Art Carney, Audrey Meadows, and Joyce Randolph." There you have, succinctly, the order of importance of each element of the credits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your critical mistake is assuming voice work is somehow less demanding or less worthy acting than on screen or on stage. I think that sort of elitism, as well as other kinds (stage acting as "legit" theater as opposed to movie, movie acting as more artistic than TV) is demeaning to the profession. In some ways voice acting is even more difficult because your voice has to carry all of the human weight of the performance, you can't be a broad actor when your only medium of conveying emotion is through voice. Of course the animation imparts just as much as the voice but in the same way as in a live action film set design, CGI, music scoring and costuming carry just as much of the weight of a performance as the actors. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The gold standard of voice acting would be Mel Blanc, who didn't just "do voices", he gave them distinctive personalities. Supposedly, in the recording studio, he wouldn't just do the voice, he would also take on a particular pose and expression, to "get into character". Blanc also honed his craft on the radio, of course. Radio actors in general made good voice actors, since they had to know how to convey that emotion through voice, as you're describing. Voice acting is an art. Not everyone can do it well. I should also mention that Blanc was one of the first voice actors, if not THE first, to get an on-screen credit. That began a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sí. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A star is anyone whose name in the credits (or by word of mouth) will draw viewers. I rent movies all the time by searching for the likes of Victoria Abril or Fanny Ardant, the hottest 70 year old on the planet. μηδείς (talk)

A French cousin of Dale Ardor, perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Arden? Or is that from Flesh Gordon? Or Fanny's sister Amorosa Bottoms? Ardant played Mary de Guise in Elizabeth (film) and an archangel (I presume] in Don't Tempt Me. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Flesh. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Ardant seems to be 63. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HominidMachinae, I take your point about assuming voice work is somehow less demanding or less worthy acting than on screen or on stage. I wasn't saying it's less demanding while it's happening, just that it can all be wrapped up far more quickly than the work of live-action actors, but they still demand their humungous millions (Cameron Diaz got $20 million for providing her voice for Shrek, not bad for a week's work). I guess the other thing is the ambiguity that this usage has brought to sentences like "She has starred in 14 films to date". Previously, that meant she made 14 live action films with her as the star, and we could if we like watch all of them and compare her performances. Now, that sentence could mean she has made 3 live action films and 11 animated films. A comparison of her "performances" in the first 3 with her "performances" in the other 11 would be a far harder ask. People who'd never heard of her before they were wowed by her the first time, might be tempted to go and rent/buy all her movies on the assumption they'd be getting 14 different experiences of her beautiful face and body, only to discover all they're getting is multiple experiences of her voice, which is not remotely what they were interested in. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiring actors like that to provide animated voices is something of a sore point for professional voice actors. I remember reading an interview with Billy West where he ranted at length about it. You might not even know who Billy West is, and you probably wouldn't know him if you saw him, but if you've watched a cartoon in the past 30 years you definitely know his voice (and Maurice LaMarche...Rob Paulsen...Frank Welker...) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quite reasonable sore point, countered (I guess) by the primary driving force in Hollywood. Popular names on movie marquees (or the equivalent thereof) sell tickets. There isn't much more to it than that. Countless examples of producers picking star quality over talent exist. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West had a reasonable point, but it's somewhat over-whelmed by the fact that many of the biggest stars to voice animated films have also (perhaps coincidentally) turned in great performances - Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy in Shrek (Diaz was okay), Murphy in Mulan, and the one that started it all - Robin Williams in Aladdin. Without Myers, Shrek is a one-off cartoon that goes nowhere; without Williams, Aladdin dulls the 1990s Disney resurgence. There's also something to be said for not having every single cartoon character voiced by one of the one or two dozen people that do 90% of the background jobs. Matt Deres (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth pointing out other actors who are primarily famous for their voice work. Hank Azaria does do live acting as well, but he is far better known for his voice work (mostly in conjucntion with The Simpsons. Jim Cummings is something of a modern day Mel Blanc, he has an amazing ability to change voices, even being able to mimic characters made famous by earlier actors. Paul Winchell was another well known as a famous voice actor. Andy Serkis has become a famous voice actor known for his pioneering work in motion-capture acting. --Jayron32 04:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for your thoughtful comments. The bottom line is they didn't use the "starring" terminology for voice acting back in the 1970s when big-name stars started getting into the act. That's a matter of historical record. If "starring" had always been accepted as applying to voice acting, there'd have been no holding back. Somewhere along the way since then, some bright spark decided they could stretch the meaning, it became an accepted usage, dictionaries have recorded it, and here we are. Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The early motion pictures often didn't identify their actors either. Over time, film marketers figured out the value of "star power". Mel Blanc got a credit because he demanded it in his contract negotations. The downside of that is that it gave the idea that he did all the voices, which was often not the case. In relatively recent times the actors behind the voices were assumed to add to the star power of a cartoon, and to potentially increase revenue. It's always about money, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved