Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 May 30

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 30

Why syndicated TV show episodes are not shown in order

When a TV show is re-run in syndication, are there typically any "rules" that dictate how it can be aired? Or does the TV station pretty much have free reign? Sometimes, the episodes are aired in consecutive order. More often, however, they seem to be shown in some willy-nilly random order of episodes. Why would a TV station deliberately choose to air the episodes in some out-of-order sequence? And is it really just a random ordering, or is there some method to their madness? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the USA (where I think you are), but here in the UK it is free reign. For example, ITV4 screened The New Avengers, showed them out of order and omitted an episode. When I emailed them about the missing episode, they said "We can confirm that the episode was not purchased for transmission." Why do they do this? IMO it is to annoy the viewer, or they just don't care! It's even worse in Australia. One station is currently showing Beverly Hillbillies, without credits and in a random order. Back in the 80's this would have been unheard off. For example when they were showing Rock Follies, one week they started showing the wrong episode. The station let it run, but extended the season by a week, so they could show the episode again in the correct sequence. --TrogWoolley (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In the US, syndicated programs are sold to local stations or groups of stations on contract for a year at a time. The distributor decides which episode to air on which day and often includes some national commercials (called "barters") that are imbedded in the program and shown on every station that airs that episode. Individual stations are generally free to decide what time to air the program, but not which episode to air on any given day, unless something unusual prevents the intended episode from airing, such as a transmission error, in which case they may substitute another episode instead. Once a network series has aired in first-run syndication for several years, it may be offered to stations on a cash basis (with no imbedded commercials) and each station is then free to program the episodes as they wish. --Thomprod (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

rein, dammit. —Tamfang (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Some other reasons why they may air them out of order:

1) For whatever reason, they aren't delivered to them in order, and they don't think the time and cost of sorting them into the correct order will be a good investment.

2) They may show all the episodes for a certain holiday, like Christmas, during the week of the holiday, even though they are from different seasons.

3) Certain episodes may not be shown at all, if they are now considered controversial, say due to racial or anti-gay attitudes.

4) Each episode may have a slightly different length, so picking a different episode with a longer or shorter run time may help them fit in their commercials better.

As far as how annoying it is to view them out of order, something like The Beverly Hillbillies is quite episodic in nature, so you might not even know which episodes were out of order, except that I believe they switched from black-and-white to color during the run. An exception is for two-part or multi-part episodes. Other shows are quite serial in nature, so knowing what happened first is important. Soap operas are like that. Some are more in-between, like Friends, where there were changes in each season, but you could probably pick up on what's happening quickly enough. Then we have shows like the classic Avengers, which, while episodic in nature, so completely changed from a serious show to camp over it's run that it would be quite jarring to jump back and forth. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've seen The Beverly Hillbillies, but as I recall, there was an "establishing" episode or two, covering the "origin story", and after that they were almost interchangeable, i.e. they kept re-working the same basic themes over and over. Contrast that with a series like Person of Interest, which is not even in syndication as far as I know, yet CBS is already doing that kind of thing: They will run random rerun episodes during weeks when they're not doing first-runs, and it doesn't really work. That series needs to be seen in order or it doesn't make much sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a difference between shows where people may see it in syndication the first time and those with which pretty much everyone is already familiar. So, in first run syndication it might be more important to put them in correct order. In the case of BH, the opening credits explain the story, so you don't need to have seen the establishing episodes. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And come to think of it, probably no show did that better than Gilligan's Island, whose opening credits' famous theme song capsuled the entire premise, and the show reworked the same jokes for the whole series. Although I think that show also had an "establishing" episode. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Never saw a pilot for GI. The Brady Bunch had a pilot that was notable for a couple reasons, one being that the kids were much younger, as there was apparently quite a gap between the pilot and when they started the series, and the other is that the girls/women had a cat.

That brings up another issue, that any show with kids in it makes it easier to tell early episodes from later ones, as the kids get older. Also true if the pets grow visibly older, die, or retire. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Pilots are often shot well before the actual series debut, and changes can occur. MASH was that way, for one. But sometimes they're spinoffs. Have you ever seen the "pilot" for The Andy Griffith Show? It was actually an episode of The Danny Thomas Show aka Make Room for Daddy. Frances Bavier was in it, but not playing Aunt Bea, but a different, unrelated character. (It's no accident that Danny Thomas retained a hand in the production of the series.) The "pilot" for Gomer Pyle, USMC as I recall was likewise an episode of The Andy Griffith Show. And on it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And following up on your later comment, yes, the kids date a given show. TAGS for sure - just check whether "Ronnie" Howard looks more like little Opie or more like "Ron" Howard in American Graffiti and/or Happy Days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, another way to tell how old an episode is is if they retooled the show. The original Star Trek pilot had Captain Pike instead of Kirk. Spock, while present, yelled much of his dialog, for some reason. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"...I have to push the pram a lot..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[1]

Thanks. Back to my original question. I don't see what incentive or motivation the distributor has to release the episodes in willy-nilly random order. That would seem to be more work than just releasing them in numerical order. If I were the distributor, it would be very easy (I assume) to release episode 1, then episode 2, etc. It would be very easy to keep track of. If I were the distributor, it would seem much harder to release in a random willy-nilly order. (For example, I'd say: "OK, I released episode 28, and then I released episode 56; now wait, did I release episode 47 yet or not?" ... and so forth.) Seems like a lot of work. And another question, because perhaps my premise here is faulty. If the TV station wants to re-run, for example, Everybody Loves Raymond, I assume that they purchase the entire set of 210 episodes. Is that correct? Or do they just place an order, for example, like this: "I'd like to purchase just 58 episodes – any 58 episodes – of Everybody Loves Raymond" ...? Can anyone clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

They can buy the entire series or can by it by season (common if the show is still running). There could also be some special sequences, like holiday shows, they can buy.

As for why the distributor might release them out of order, lets say they want to add closed captioning to each episode, and send the episodes out to three different companies to add that, then one is late in getting theirs done, another did some of the episodes, but the ones where they couldn't hear the dialog clearly they asked to see the original script, so skipped those until later. Then maybe one of the episodes was also damaged somehow, so they need to ask the studio for another copy of that one. So now the distributor only has some of the episodes ready to go, so sends out the ones they have, and sends the rest later. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That makes sense. Wow, I never realized what a complicated process this is. I just assumed it was a simple matter of sending out episode 1, then 2, then 3, etc. Just as simple as me watching the boxed DVD set at home, and watching them in order. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

One interesting site is southparkstudios.com, which releases episodes of South Park over the web. They regularly must hold back an episode for some time, but they actually explain why. The two explanations I recall are "We had to censor that episode for broadcast, so are waiting on a copy of the uncensored version for the web" and "Contractual obligations prevent us from airing that episode until such and such date" (meaning they gave the original broadcaster a promise they would have exclusive rights to the episode until then). StuRat (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

List of casinos in Nevada.

I was checking out your list of casinos in Nevada, and your page did not have nothing on the list for Fallon, NV.

Yes, such lists are usually incomplete. However, you can add to it yourself. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

sped up guitar on old records?

I'm wondering if the guitar part on some old songs is sped up. There are several to me that sound like the song was recorded, played back at half speed, the guitar part was recorded, and then the tape was played back at the original speed. This makes the guitar sound high-pitched, very fast, and with little sustain. Two examples are Razzle Dazzle recorded by Bill Hayley & the Comets and Tutti Frutti recorded by Elvis Pressley. Does anyone know? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

On Elvis's "Tutti Frutti", I'm pretty sure that's just Scotty Moore employing the tremolo picking technique, which is common on instruments with a weak sustain like mandolin, but can be used on any stringed instrument. You can see Bill Monroe use tremolo picking in this video here and that's all Scotty Moore is doing on the guitar in that version of Tutti Frutti. It's not even all that fast compared to some guitarists. Watch Dick Dale employ perhaps the most famous use of tremolo picking here in his signature song "Misirlou", a song probably originally performed on something like the very mandolin-like Bouzouki. The use of tremolo picking in heavy metal music is what developed into shred guitar techniques. You can see Zakk Wylde here or Yngwie Malmsteen here, both masters of shred. (technically, Shred uses a hybrid of sweep picking and tremolo picking, but you can see clear use of the tremolo technique in both those videos). --Jayron32 23:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I also heard a live version of Elvis' Tutti Frutti and it wasn't like that. But it might not have been Scotty Moore. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Elvis recorded it for his first album, so the studio version would definitely have had Scotty Moore on the recording, and that one features the tremolo guitar. Most of the live performances from that period would have also featured Moore, who I believe also toured with Elvis throughout the 1950s. Of course, the arrangement may have been different in any given performance, and Elvis played with any number of musicians in later years. --Jayron32 00:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that I didn't know if Scotty was on the live version. I also don't know when it was - could be quite a bit later. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Razzle Dazzle - here are three links. The first is miming to the record. I can't see his fingers well enough, but he has his left hand off the guitar for the second half of the guitar solo. In the 1958 concert, I can't tell. In the 1976 concert, he certainly seems to be picking like you say.

• miming to the record
• 1958 concert
• 1976 concert Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yup. That third one shows classic tremolo picking. --Jayron32 01:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Father Ted

Is it true that in the German dub of Father Ted, instead of DRINK, FECK and GIRLS Father Jack says NATION, POWER, CONQUER (in German of course)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2450mAh (talk • contribs)

I'm not even seeing rumors of that anywhere on the net, and cannot begin to think of a reason why Germany (which has anti-Nazi censorship so strict that they censor games where you shoot Nazis) would have a character all but calling for some rather specific "old days." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did you hear this? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The movie bicentennial man; At what age does a person cease to be a human being?

I watched the movie "bicentennial man" (literally, the 200 year old man) and it got me thinking; 80-90 years old the proper age limit of a human. After that life is being artificially extended. During the middle ages and caveman times people didn't live that long, for millions of years. Only recently does 100 years seem like the human life span. Is there a point where someone living 200 years will not be considered normal, and science will say "humans naturally live to 130 years and anything after that is not a human it's an artificial being kept alive via technology"? InquisitivedMinds (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - However, I think it's a reasonable conjecture that the simple duration of someone's life would not be sufficient to convince a rational person that they were no longer human. The key factors would be whether a significant portion of their body (or brain) had been replaced by something mechanical, or whether their body was now primarily sustained by different physical processes from those which sustain all of us. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

People not so old are kept alive by artificial means, e.g. pacemakers. That doesn't make them any less human. At some as-yet-undetermined point, they may cross the line and be considered cyborgs. (Entertaining as this may be, this question really belongs on the Humanities desk.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "proper" age limit. While medicine can extend life, it's not always necessary. I have a distant relative who lived to be 104 years old, and that was from the mid-1700s to the mid-1800s, when medicine was still pretty dicey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a legitimate question. It involves fantasy, not even legitimate speculation. It also asks what is "normal" in the context of the fantastic speculative question. This actually could have been posed in a different manner and as it stands the only way to answer this is to point blank state that your humanity does not end at or by the opinion of science. Sorry, If that sounded a tad blunt.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the brain that makes us human. Somebody who is completely brain dead and kept alive on machines, to me, isn't a living human being any more. However, even if they were 1000 years old, if their brain still functions, I'd still call them a living human. The tricky part will be when we start replacing parts of the brain, and they still act the same, but are they really still human, or only mimicing human behavior ? StuRat (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What is socialization, if not learning to mimic human behavior? —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about "caveman times" but there are lots of ancient medieval people who lived to be 80 or 90, even 100. Basically once you live past childhood in an era with a high child mortality rate, there's nothing really stopping you from living as long as modern people. (Well, there are diseases modern people no longer die from...and war. But aside from that!) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

OP has been blocked as a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

To anyone who is interested in this work, I highly recommend the book The_Bicentennial_Man over the movie. It discusses some of the philosophy, and has a bit of a different ending. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)