Entertainment desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 25[edit]

Maximum number of T20 and ODI games[edit]

What is maximum number of T20 test games does a full member of International Cricket Council can play to face with another full member? What is maximum number of ODI test games does a full member of International Cricket Council can play to face with another full member? --Donmust90-- Donmust90 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. In theory, there is no limit to the number of games, over a long enough period of time, assuming the [version of the] sport survives. England and Australia have played 361 Tests against one another so far since 1877. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing's bothering me about the 1939 Wizard of Oz. (resolved)[edit]

EDIT: I got my answers so no need to go on. You are free to keep posting comments, but no more are needed. Thanks for the help. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong (1933) proves that they did have the technology back then to not make it look like people were just in costumes.

So why is it that it's so obvious they are wearing costumes?

And that was a high budget movie at the top of it, which makes this even more confusing. It's close to impossible to see any of the animals on Kong Island are fake in the 1933 movie, that's how great it looked.

Look, I know technology wasn't as advanced back then as it is now. That's why I brought up a movie that came the same decade and years before in the same decade. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because they immediately proved they weren't real animals by talking. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the dinosaur in the 1933 King Kong movie wasn't a real animal either, but it was hard to tell it wasn't a real dinosaur. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, stop-motion has always looked fakey. But what is it about TWOZ that's bothering you, specifically? Are you saying they should have had the scarecrow, tin man and lion as stop-motion? I don't think that would have worked at all. As HiLo says, they have to talk. And they also have to relate back to their human counterparts in Kansas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first thing's first, even if so what else were they supposed to do? The advanced computers most people use today didn't exist back then. What else could they do back in the 1930's? Genuine question.

Second, well, I want it to not look like it's just people in costumes. I guess that was impossible back then without slow motion. I get it now thanks for answering my question. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To create suspense, the animals in King Kong had to look realistic. They were animated with stop motion,^[1] a not super high-tech method realized with puppets for King Kong and claymation for the dinosaurs. The Wizard of Oz is like a fairy tale, aimed at children. There was no need to make the Cowardly Lion look like a real lion, which (to remain realistic) could not have interacted with the other characters as required by the script. --Lambiam 06:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]