Entertainment desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

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.

November 4

2 Question about the star trek franchise:

1. Does remember the creature from the original series epsiode the mantrap? What was its gender and do you think it kinda looked like a swamp Halloween creature or gorilla? Cater says to kirk It needs love as much as it needs salt." And what did captain kirk mean when he said to professor crater "You bleed too much, Crater. You're too pure and noble. Are you saving the last of its kind...or has this become Crater's private heaven here on this planet? This thing becomes wife, lover, best friend...wise man, fool, idol, slave." Were the professor and creature lovers? and was the creature showing romantic love towards crater?

2. I find it interesting to note that the fereangi, borg and the planet Risa showed up in the enterprise series even though those things didn't show up in the original series. Did anything else that was in later series but in the original series show up too? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venustar84 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) That was the creature which killed by sucking all the salt out of it's victims with suction cup fingertips, right ? I got the impression that Crater's love for the creature was one-sided. It simply left him alive because it knew Crater would protect it. Kirk was asking if Crater wanted to save it because it was a unique life form, as he claimed, or if he had fallen in love with it. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Stu, you're thinking of the right one. And it's no surprise that places and species showed up in The Next Generation that weren't in the original series. Several decades of exploration had happened between the two series. There are many episodes of TNG that deal with new things that TOS never dealt with. Just to name a few there was Q, Betazoids, Tin Man (a.k.a. Gomtuu), and the list goes on. There's even the Nausicaans who weren't in TOS, were shown in TNG, and were mentioned in Enterprise which using the in-universe chronology predates TOS. Dismas|^(talk) 03:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP as to your second question I think that you should read the Retroactive continuity article. Especially in relation to Enterprise as that series was trying to tell stories that tied the previous four series as well as the films together into one giant narrative. Any series of TV shows (and films for that matter - think James Bond) that last for a number of years will have discrepancies and discontinuities crop up. This is partly to do with the changeover of personal - ie writers, directors, story editors and on and on - as each of them will add their own touches to the show. Also not everyone who works on a show will care about what came before them. When you get shows that have lasted for decades these will grow exponentially. One example is that when Dr Who (50th anniversary in less than three weeks!) began no consideration was given to explaining where the Doctor and Susan came from. The planet of the time Lords would not be seen for six years (The War Games) and it would not be given a name for another five (The Time Warrior). In fact in interviews with Verity Lambert (who was the shows first producer) she stated that she felt that it should always have been kept a mystery. Other editors will be able to give more specific answers to your question but I thought I would try and add a broader perspective. MarnetteD | Talk 03:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Borg showed up on Enterprise because of the events of Star Trek: First Contact, which hadn't happened yet in TOS (as much as that makes sense for a time-travel plot). The Ferengi on Enterprise were purposely never identified by name since first contact with them was already established as taking place in the 24th century (although that Enterprise episode was still pretty silly). There were several species that were on Enterprise as a reference to TOS, that weren't on TNG - especially Andorians and Tellarites, but also Gorn, and there were a lot more Vulcans than on TNG. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ferengi didn't make contact with the Federation until 2364, long past TOS, the Borg until Jean-Luc's era (kinda, sorta You didn't really think he was human, did you?), while Risa is just one planet. They didn't mention every planet in the Federation. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When first made, the Original Series was just a show that struggled to make it past two seasons; and was cancelled after three. Roll on after twenty years of fan obsession and things that didn't seem important to the show's makers in the 1960s turned out to be quite important to the fans of the 1980/90s; things like consistant star dates, warp numbers and the whole back story. To address these concerns and avoid things like having Khan Noonien Singh leave Earth in the 1990s during the Eugenics Wars, large parts of back story were retconned to correct these inconsistancies - and it is usually the Original Series that loses out. So Risa is mentioned in Enterprise to provide a link for The Next Generation fans. The whole Klingon head ridges issue is explained in the Enterprise story arc about genetic enhancements gone wrong, and providing a nod to Data from The Next Generation. The Borg episode in Enterprise is an interesting case, because it gives you the impression that Archer's experience with them would have featured prominently in his report back to starfleet, yet there is no in-universe explanation as to why The Next Generation crew are completely in the dark about the Borg (of course, in real life, the Next Generation preceeded Enterprise by 15 years). Astronaut (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French Lyrics C'est Magnifique

Who wrote the French lyrics for C'est Magnifique? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.245.57 (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any particular reason to believe they weren't written by Cole Porter? (added link) Rojomoke (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, he studied (amongst other things) French at Yale and lived in Paris for 5 years, so was quite capable. Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Soaring Pilots Worldwide?

Hello,

I'm trying to determine the number of hang glider, paraglider, and glider pilots worldwide.

I found a glider pilot reference [111,000 glider pilots (Roake, John (2012-02-20). "Gliding Membership Report". Gliding International (Gliding International Ltd)] but the other two categories have escaped me.

I've checked national and international association websites and looked for article references, but found nothing.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.188.94 (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MLB intentional walks with bases loaded

I was under the impression that this has happened three times in history: to Nap Lajoie, Swish Nicholson, and Barry Bonds (not counting the time Babe Ruth struck out in frustration when it was attempted on him). Our article Abner Dalrymple says it was done to him in 1881. The article only has one reference, which doesn't seem to mention it. 1881 in baseball doesn't mention it either; seems like quite an omission for something rarer than a perfect game. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Joefromrandb (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source [1] claims it happened on August 21, 1881, yet another source (not fully reliable) [2] claims the first intentional walk was only issued in 1896. SABR's biography of Kid Gleason [3], which is more reliable, also states he ordered to first intentional walk in 1896. However, this article [4] by Mark Thorn claims the term "intentional walk" was first used in print in 1894, which is still a number of years after Dalrymple's supposed feat. It does strengthen the idea that the strategy was developed in the 1890s however. I am therefore very doubtful about Dalrymple's claim; it probably was simply a run-of-the-mill bases loaded walk. --Xuxl (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the first source I mention lists a couple more occasions it has happened, which are both uncontested: Del Bissonette in 1928 and Josh Hamilton in 2008. --Xuxl (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Hamilton I was unaware of, as my source was from 2007. I was also unaware of Bissonette (his article curiously makes no mention of it). Your source doesn't mention Lajoie, which is odd, as his case in uncontested. Also, your source says Hamilton became the sixth player in history to have this happen, but only lists four instances. Maybe Bugs will know. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Bissonette, the game's boxscore [5] doesn't list the walk as intentional, and his SABR Biography doesn't mention the incident either [6], which makes me think that in this case again, someone has confused "pitching around" a batter with issuing him an intentional walk. Bissonette was only a rookie at the time, and the game was on May 2nd, so Del would not yet have acquired his reputation as a fearsome slugger. So that one is doubtful too. That leaves Lajoie, Nicholson, Bonds and Hamilton as indisputable. Here's more about the Dalrymple game, with a quote from the Chicago Tribune: [7]. It explains that the walk was on purpose (even though the intentional walk had not yet been invented). And the game was only re-discovered in 2007, which explains why it doesn't figure prominently on other lists. --Xuxl (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That name "Bissonette" reminds me of a running gag in a W.C. Fields movie. Retrosheet is my source for stats. I'm not going to argue that it's perfect, but it's pretty good. Here's the play-by-play account of Hamilton's bases-loaded intentional walk in 2008.[8] The Bonds incident is also confirmed in the play-by-play.[9] The account in the Nicholson article is contradicted by the box score.[10] The SABR article says he was walked in the 8th [after having homered in the 7th], which makes more sense.[11] There are no play-by-play logs for the earlier years mentioned. The IBB stats don't start showing up until the late 1930s, so it would take some special research to uncover the details about those various other incidents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the 1881 IBB says "Dalrymple was intentionally given 7 balls". I vaguely recall seeing information about 7 (or even 8) balls being required for a walk in baseball's early days. ~~Our base on balls article makes no mention of this.~~ Joefromrandb (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Base on balls the answer would have been 8 in 1881. The way it's stated in that article is kind of peculiar, so this is another thing to be researched. I would assume that the reason for the invention of the called strike and ball were to keep the game moving, otherwise a batter might be facing the pitcher all day until he got a pitch he liked (although modern play, with its 3 1/2 hour nine-inning games, seems to trend that direction anyway.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A possibility might be that a pitch was thrown that scared the manager, and he ordered the seven balls to be thrown at a point where there was already one ball in the count. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reasonable assumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of a ca.1980 book called "Day by Day in Chicago Cubs History". It appears to be pretty thoroughly researched, and there's nothing indicating a bases loaded intentional walk. However, the linked reference might reflect further research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing inconsistencies in the history of how many balls constituted a walk. It went from 8 to 7, but some sources say it was 1881 (which would make sense for the anecdote cited) while some say 1882. In those early years, there was other tinkering with the pitcher and the batter as they tried to find the right balance between pitching and batting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the quote from the Chicago Trib is accurate (as mentioned earlier here) and not inadvertently misleading, then the 1881 incident certainly seems to qualify.[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First base uncontested

While we're on the subject of baseball, I recall reading that under MLB rules, a player is entitled to first base if "a hit or pitched ball rolls under a field fence or backstop" or "a pitched ball passes the catcher and becomes lodged in the umpire's mask or paraphernalia"; I was wondering if either of these bizarre instances have occurred in an MLB game. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds familiar, but it wouldn't be for just any old pitched ball, it would have to be under certain circumstances. I'll check when I get the chance, unless someone beats me to it. It's worth pointing out that the entire MLB rules book is available online, I think at mlb.com somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read it in the MLB rules (a copy, that is; not directly from their site). I'm fairly sure it's correct. I was just wondering if it ever occurred in a game. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here page 33 which notes of the ball becoming lodged in the catcher's gear. All players, including the batter, are awarded one base. It apparently happened in a game cited there. The book notes that the rule applies to both the catcher's gear and umpire's gear equally, with no distinction made. --Jayron32 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling was a wild pitch, and the runners advanced, but the batter stayed put, and flied out a little later.[13] A batter only gets to go to first on such a play if he would have had an opportunity during the normal course of play, such as a swinging strike three, or ball four. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The operative rule is 5.09(g).[14] See pages 45-46 of that link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

heart attack scene in movie/film/show/cartoon

I vagualy remember a scene about a person (i think it was a man) who gets a heart attack. and it's like very detailed, and starts with him getting a big heart pain, and then it like shows inside of him, his heart and surroundings, how he gets the heart attack, or why. You can see how/why his hearts stops, as he gets the attack. I think it was animated, but the movie/film/show wasn't. and it was very realistic, it shows his heart stop because of something, it was very saddening and I don't remember what happens after that it.

It was NOT a documentary or educational vid. it was not from "1000 ways to die".

And it was like not something from a sci-fi movie, just like because of a bloody clot, or something. but it was not real btw, was in something fictional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.159.215 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question, the man was a cartoon animation? Shows like House M.D. were classic for this in the opening sequences and a casual observer might see the 'internals' as some form of sophisticated animation (which I believe some were computer enhanced animations). My first thought on this was the "I'm Jack's ___" series but you say it was not documentary/educational.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also immediately thought of "I'm Joe's Heart." But as you say - it was more educational than fiction. There were several episodes. http://www.imdb.com/find?q=I+am+Joe%27s&s=all 196.214.78.114 (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing happens a lot in the CSI television show. I'll try to find an example. uhhlive (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British music TV show

I have memories of a British prog/psychedelia/hard roock music TV program screened in Australia maybe 1968. Two certainties were its opening theme - You Keep Me Hanging On by Vanilla Fudge to artwork by Martin Sharp. I can find no mention in my Penguin Encyclopedia of Popular Music or on the 'net. Does anyone have memories or information? Doug butler (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Colour Me Pop, by any chance? I don't think Vanilla Fudge ever appeared on it, though. Tevildo (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not, then possibly another show called Disco Two. I can't find anything about it on the net, but The Old Grey Whistle Test mentions that it was the forerunner of that series. --Viennese Waltz 05:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some more about Disco 2 here. According to this site, it was a BBC2 series that started on 12 September 1970, ran until July 1971, and seems to have had some excellent guests. I must have watched some, but can't remember anything about it. No mention of the mighty Fudge, I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: See also Disco 2. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I imagine most if not all of this footage must be lost by now, sadly, as the Colour Me Pop stuff is. --Viennese Waltz 13:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this page says that Disco 2 had a "title tune by Elton John" rather than Vanilla Fudge's recording, so the OP is probably not recalling that show. Deor (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That site is good for browsing around - it has excellent coverage of UK TV music programmes between 1964-75. I can't see the answer there, though there is a mention of a Vanilla Fudge mimed performance of "Eleanor Rigby" on French TV in January 1968, with a "psychedelic animation overlay". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]