Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:38, 12 September 2023

Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/E

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

September 7

Lee majors the fall guy

Tv series 209.171.85.47 (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean this: The Fall Guy. What about it? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Lee Majors. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a fan, he's also the Winter Guy, the Spring Guy and the Summer Guy; truly a man for all seasons. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That gets my vote for Refdesk Quip-of-the-Week.

-- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

Movie production records

Hello - I'd like to find out what movie holds the record for longest production time - to this, I mean, what movie took the longest to shoot from start of filming to end of filming. Thanks in advance! 130.86.12.208 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boyhood (2014 film) might qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check out List_of_films_with_longest_production_time RudolfRed (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like The Other Side of the Wind is the grand champion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The OP specified time of filming. While The Other Side of the Wind went over 40 years to release, filming was completed in 6. I don't know if other movies took longer to film but less time to release, but it seems possible. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for sure. There are a lot of movies on that list that are held up by post-production issues or distribution, but it does not necessarily specify by filming time. 130.86.12.208 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

dancers in commercial

Back in 1993, I saw this commercial for TWA [1]. It consisted of dancers. (The purpose was to point out more legroom.) Were the dancers Radio City Rockettes? Anyone know?2603:7000:8641:810E:A087:8C58:6DA1:3121 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a NYT subscription (I don't) then the answer might be found in this 1993 business article: [2] -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a New York Times subscriber, and the only directly relevant sentence in that article is "Another commercial that is still in production will show a dancer performing high kicks in the added space.". Cullen328 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I think 'dancer' (singular) is right. Cheaper than hiring a troupe, and guaranteed to be synchronised by the magic of post-production. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 23:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Only one dancer performed, and was transformed into several by the special effects technology widely available 30 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Eligible receivers

In American and Canadian football, why does the eligible receiver rule exist? That is, what benefit did the rulemakers have in mind when they restricted which players can catch a forward pass? --142.112.221.184 (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The forward pass was a relatively late addition to the rules, and from the start it was designed to include limits regarding its usage. For example, it can only be attempted once per play, and only from behind the line of scrimmage. The number of players who can catch a forward pass is also limited. This is all in order to preserve the running game as an integral part of football. --Xuxl (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious. (Or, ^{[citation needed]}.) How does the concept of an ineligible pass receiver enhance the running game? Players on the offensive line generally don't run with the ball either. --142.112.221.184 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone could catch a pass, pass coverage would be almost impossible, completely altering game play. Until 1905, forward passes were illegal. When finally allowed, they came with significant restrictions, some of which still exist (eligible receivers) and some of which have been dropped or modified (the passer needed to be at least 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage until the 1930s). Traditionalists back then thought that real football was trying to run the pigskin through a pack of opposing players, and that this fancy-schmanzy passing stuff was alien to the spirit of the game. A lot of college programs kept playing that way into the late 1970s ("three yards an a cloud of dust"), so that mentality endured for a long time. The sport could have evolved in a completely different direction, but it didn't. See here [3] and here [4] for example. Xuxl (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pass coverage would be almost impossible": that makes some sense but I'm still dubious without a source.

As to the early days when a forward pass "was alien to the spirit of the game", I understand that. To my mind, that period ended with the rule that an incomplete pass simply ends the play, leaving the same team in possession of the ball and on the same yard line as before the play. Neither of Xuxi's cited sources, nor the Wikipedia articles linked here, say when this rule was introduced, and I'd like to know if the eligible-receiver rule was introduced at the same time, or during the early era, or perhaps at a later time. --142.112.221.184 (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this discussion enlightening.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, DIoc?} carrots→ 02:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --142.112.221.184 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to know the reason for just about any rule of gridiron football, I highly recommend you find a copy (digital or print) of David M. Nelson's book The Anatomy of a Game. here is the Google Books preview version. It was published posthumously in 1994, and it is the canonical work on the history of American Football rules. Nelson was (and still is, as of 2023) the longest serving chair of the NCAA Football Rules Committee, having held the position for 29 years. Nelson has a lot to say on the evolution of the forward pass rule (from my memory), noting it as one of the the two most tinkered-with rules during the first several decades of American football (the other such rule was the fair catch rule, which Nelson was particularly annoyed with if only because the amount of tinkering, in that case, was inversely proportional to the importance of said rule). --Jayron 32 16:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks! I'll request an interlibrary loan for that one. --142.112.221.184 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also look at the rules for the ineligible receivers on the line. In a pass play, they are not allowed to rush down the field and block for receivers. They are only allowed to block for the passer. If it is a running play, they can rush down the field and block for the runner. If everyone was an eligible receiver, you could have blockers keep defense away from the receiver, making the pass play too difficult to defend against. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scifi movies

What were the most popular scifi movies in the last 5 years?~~~~ Readergirl22 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing films#High-grossing films by year would certainly put Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) in the top spot. You can look at the articles for individual years and pick out the science fiction films from there. For example, 2019 in film has Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker at no.7. 2020 in film has Tenet at no. 5. And so on. --Viennese Waltz 08:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Notes of part of "The Mulberry Bush"

Please note that this section is about the red part of the lyrics that follow:

Here we go round the mulberry bush; the mulberry bush; the mulberry bush. Here we go round the mulberry bush, so early in the morning.

In practice, everyone sings this line (assuming the song is in F) as F-E-E-D-C, but songbooks often write A-G-G-E-C when they arrange this song. Any reason for this?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The very similar song "Nuts in May" has sheet music which may help clarify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a folk song, there are going to be numerous variations on both the lyrics and the melody. That's the reason why there are differences. Because different people have learned to sing it differently. --Jayron 32 11:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

Most famous film quotes by 'no-name' characters

What are the greatest, most famous, most iconic, most often cited movie quotes said by a minor 'no-name' character who does not even have assigned a name, or it is not mentioned in the film? I guess there is little competition for the top spot to “Negative, Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.” In this case, the character had been assigned a name (Air Boss Johnson), but it was not mentioned in the film. What other examples are there - even more for real no-name roles without any name assigned? --KnightMove (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When Harry Met Sally: "I'll have what she's having" Staecker (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Story Ever Told: "Truly this man was the son of God." Spoken by a nameless centurion, voiced by John Wayne. --Viennese Waltz 12:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly any line spoken by the Man with No Name in Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy would qualify, no? --Jayron 32 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 :''[[When Harry Met Sally]]'': "I'll have what she's having" [[User:Staecker|Staecker]] ([[User talk:Staecker|talk]]) 11:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 :''[[The Greatest Story Ever Told]]'': "Truly this man was the son of God." Spoken by a nameless centurion, voiced by John Wayne. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 12:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
+:Certainly any line spoken by the [[Man with No Name]] in Sergio Leone's [[Dollars Trilogy]] would qualify, no?  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)