Entertainment desk
< December 15	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 17 >

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 16[edit]

Font in The Prisoner?[edit]

What is the name of font used in The Prisoner in all of the printing? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closest modern font I can find is either ITC Benguiat or Garamond, but those have a closed "e" rather than the open e of the font you want. You may want to search through Samples of serif typefaces or List of typefaces. --Jayron32 04:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it was a modified version of Albertus (typeface).

On the show the i and the j were "dotless", unlike standard Albertus. And the "e" was usually open, but not always. (I think always in the word "Village", though.)

There's what appears to be a pretty good fan recreation of the font here.

Hope this helps. APL (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's such an important design element that I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the article. Perhaps someone could find a slot for that.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked in the article first to see if it gave the font. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"San Francisco Rock" on TV about 1971[edit]

I remember a show titled something like "San Francisco Rock" that was on TV about 1971. IIRC, it was on PBS about 10PM or 11PM on Sunday night. It featured rock acts at the Fillmore West, Jefferson Airplane, Santana, etc. Does anyone know details of this show? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Rock: A Night at the Family Dog at IMDb (1970). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it but I had the venue wrong. I think this was a series of TV shows about 1970-71. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for an independent filmmaker[edit]

I plan to make an independent film. How much will it cost to blow footage filmed with Digital camera onto a 35mm print? Which of the two is economical 1)filming with 35mm film stock or 2)footage converted to 35mm print from a digital camera-shot film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.149.10 (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This site suggests $350/minute for transferring to 35mm (including sound, negative, and print). They quote $20,000 for a 75 minute film. The price of 35mm film varies a lot depending on if it's new, re-cans, offcuts, etc, and you need to factor in the amount of film shot and not used, developing, transfer to video for editing, and printing - it's going to be more than the video-to-film transfer. On the other hand there's the comparative price of equipment hire, experienced technicians, etc... --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless things have changed drastically since I worked with film, when you shoot on 35mm film, the film you are using to shoot isn't the film that is used when showing the film. You have original stock and final stock (and often, in-between stock). So, you still have to pay to transfer your original stock to final stock. With the original stock, you will do all your editing. You will probably use copies there because you can't uncut film (a splice is always a splice). So, you can't cut a scene and then change your mind and uncut it. In digital, you can chop it up, undo that, change it around, undo that, etc... So, I believe that it would be cheaper, overall, to shoot digital if and only if you have access to a digital editing setup for editing the film. If you have to pay for access to the digital editing setup, it may well cost more than the cost of the 35mm film if you went the traditional route. Personally, I'd shoot it all with a rather cheap digital camera (they are HD now, so it is television quality), edit it on my personal computer, and use that to try and get the budget to use real equipment and a professional crew. Who knows, you might find that the second time around you have a much better idea for how the movie should progress. -- kainaw ™ 14:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is significantly more economical, and practical, to shoot on digital video. At this point, don't worry about the 35mm print. Shoot the best movie you can and edit it on a computer. If it turns out well, you can then think about a print, though at that point, chances are you'll want to improve the sound quality first. Good luck! —Kevin Myers 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vow! Thank you very much friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.149.10 (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutcracker ballet magic[edit]

I just saw the New York City Ballet production of The Nutcracker, and have some questions on the special effects:

1) During the opening scene, a screen separates the kids in the foreground from the adults in the background. The screen is sometimes opaque with the image of a wall, and sometimes transparent. How do they get this effect ? I'm guessing there is a rear projection system that displays the image of the wall on the screen, and then this is turned off and the lights behind the screen come up to make the screen transparent. Is this how they do it ?

2) The Christmas tree grows from about 10 feet tall to 41 feet. How do they do this ? Obviously it rises though the floor, but this would seem to also require an opening iris on the floor to let the tree pass, then tighten back down around the trunk after the tree is fully grown, so dancers don't fall through the hole. And is there really over 30 feet below the stage for all that tree to fit, or does it telescope out as it grows ? Also, for later scenes, without the tree, do they place a plug over the hole ?

3) Does Mother Ginger wear stilts ? StuRat (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For #1, see Scrim (material). There may be additional high-tech methods in use now that we live in the future. --LarryMac | Talk 18:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that answers part 1. Anyone have answers for 2 and 3 ? StuRat (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of Economic Transition in Star Trek World[edit]

Is there ever in any of the episodes or books (not even necessarily "officially sanctioned" books) a more detailed, of course fictional, explanation of the sequence of events that supposedly happened in our future / their past that ushered out the use of money? The most explanation I've seen is what Picard said in First Contact that people (somehow?) just started caring more about bettering themselves than getting rich (I paraphrase). But that doesn't even give a fictional event that prompted that change in human society, it just says that it happened, kind of like saying that in the 1980s people in the US started to get more cautious about medicine that didn't have anti-tamper seals without mentioning the Chicago Tylenol murders. Peter Michner (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That always seemed like a weak point in the Star Trek universe, that the fundamental nature of human beings is supposed to have changed overnight. They somewhat brought back the profit motive later, with the Ferengi, for whom "intentionally engaging in an unprofitable venture" is punishable by death. StuRat (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is never explicitly explained in the Star Trek universe (the TV shows and movies - I don't know about the books, but they aren't canonical anyway). From Picard's vague speech, and other descriptions from various episodes, we are left to assume that the specific changes were the Third World War and contact with the Vulcans. We are also supposed to assume that with the invention of transporters and holodecks and replicators, money would no longer be necessary anyway. The idea is supposed to be vague though, going back to Gene Roddenberry and the original series, before there was any sort of fleshed out background history, beyond "this takes place in the future" (the original series wasn't even set in any particular year, at first). Of course there is apparently still money of some sort, so we can also imagine that humans like to think they have moved beyond money when they really haven't. There's Latinum, of course, and "Federation credits". You can also check out the Memory Alpha article on money, which rather amusingly says "the exact nature of the Federation economy is difficult to describe". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's so difficult and time consuming to master that only long-lived Vulcans can prosper. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always took the Federation to be an example of a post-scarcity society. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was always my understanding as well. I notice that the post-scarcity article actually mentions the United Federation of Planets.

Putting together the pieces a little, while Earth was recovering from the global poverty caused by WW3 and/or The Eugenics Wars, technological advancements both eliminated scarcity, and (by meeting the Vulcans) gave the people of Earth a new set of global goals to achieve.

I guess it's not impossible for that to change the entire direction of our culture. APL (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a post-scarcity society seems fundamentally flawed, to me. I have no problem imagining a society where basic needs are met for everyone. In fact, we already have such societies, such as in some of the Scandinavian nations, where food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care are provided for the poor. (These are also provided, but to a lesser degree, in other Western nations.)

However, there will always be luxuries which can only be afforded by the rich. What if, in the Star Trek universe, somebody wants their own planet to experiment with ? Certainly not everybody can have their own planet, only the rich. Or, you could ban any item too rare for everyone to own, but that would substantially limit freedom.

To get people to voluntarily give up luxuries would require a religious motive, IMHO. For example, if people believed that living modestly would bring rewards after death and living a life of luxury would bring punishment, then true communism (not the fake communism we've seen so far), could flourish. However, religion appears to be on the decline, worldwide, and few religions teach that the rich and powerful will be punished after death (no doubt because those religions are controlled by the rich and powerful). StuRat (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Star Trek massive resource allocations like your own planet seem to require an "appeal to the federation council", which is no doubt an intensely bureaucratic process, but you don't have to go that extravagant for it to start looking questionable.

What if you want to open a restaurant in San Fransisco? Even if restaurants are not-for-profit in the future, surely a lot of chefs would want their restaurant in the capital! What happens when they run out of room? What happens if one restaurant does very poorly, but takes up a lot of prime real estate?

I think it's been implied that emigration helped this, but it couldn't possibly have helped much.APL (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Positional good is currently real and present in the psychology of a great number of humans. "For me to be doing well, you must be doing poorly." 69.243.220.115 (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the premise of the original Star Trek episode Mudd's Women that he was to supply pretty women to RICH, lonely dilithium crystal miners ? StuRat (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't recall the set-up in that episode, but I believe you. The original series was never very consistent about the Federation's back-story. It's very clear that the so-called "Roddenberry's dream" was not something he had fully thought through. APL (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article being used for commercial purposes[edit]

Hi

I wanted to know something about an article; This article http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videojuego_de_rol_multijugador_masivo_en_l%C3%ADnea (mmorpg in spanish version) has only one website as reference for MMORPGs games, zonammorpg.com. This is a commercial site that lives of publicity. Anyway, there are at least another 3 or 4 websites in spanish about mmos, like mmogamer.es, juegaenred.net, mmorpghispano.net and others.

We have edited several times the article and added and the botton in the exact same format as "zonammorpg.com" the other websites but they are deleted the day after. the only reason maybe that the editor of the website is the same one or related of the article.

Please let me know what I have to do to put the other websites in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.120.63 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really an issue for the Spanish Wikipedia. Not much we can do here. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to talk to an admin at the spanish wikipedia. They should be able to "protect" the page so that it cannot be edited. Or possibly they could ban the people who keep adding the advertisement. APL (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mosley "Easy Rawlin series books[edit]

A list of his easy Rawlin series. And the order to read them . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.110.64 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Walter_Mosely#Easy_Rawlins_mysteries. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]