Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 November 2

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 2

Andre Rieu orchestra

what type of flute does Teun Ramaekers play in the Andre Rieu band?86.163.176.101 (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This implies that he plays many different flute-like instruments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ice hockey

How are regulation time four-on-four (one man short for each team) and four-on-three (one man short for one team and two men short for the other) penalties enforced in overtime in the National Hockey League? Overtime normally begins with a four-on-four, but I can't imagine they play three-on-three or three-on-two because there always needs to be at least three men (plus the goaltender) per team on the ice. How are those types of penalties enforced? Do they wait for a stoppage of play to enforce the subsequent penalties? 71.146.7.176 (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking regular season or playoffs? And keep in mind that time is always called when a penalty is called (unless it's a delayed penalty, which is another story). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Our article on Penalty_(ice_hockey)#Enforcement_of_penalties states that in the NHL and some other leagues overtime does indeed start 4 on 4 and will go to 4 on 3 if a ref calls such a penalty, any subsequent penalty will be enforced by the non-violating team adding a player to the ice so that the game will resemble a 5 on 3 during overtime. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that time is called when a penalty occurs is important. Even forgetting the kind of shuffling they might do in overtime, on minor penalties the penalized player always has to go to the penalty box. In regulation, if a new penalty would drop the total players on the ice below the minimum, they put another, non-penalized player on the ice while the penalized player sits. (For coincident major penalties, of course, the two penalized players sit in the box but the teams don't lose any players on the ice.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The OP mentioned "3 men plus the goaltender", but in the NHL the goaltender doesn't have to be one of the four. A team is free to pull the goalie for an extra-man advantage, but if they do so and lose, they don't get a point for the overtime loss. While this renders pulling the goalie pointless in the overwhelming majority of situations, it can come into play very late in the season if a team is vying for a playoff berth. (Or, if a team can get a higher seed with two points but won't drop to a lower seed with zero.) Joefromrandb (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Pulling the goaltender is usually done for one of these two reasons: (1) To add a sixth attacker in the final minute or so of regulation play if you're down by a goal or sometimes two; or (2) when a delayed penalty has been called on the other team and a sixth attacker might help. Pulling the goaltender for reason 1, by definition cannot occur in overtime. Pulling the goalie when you're tied would be a pretty wild gamble. Reason 2 can occur anytime and is harmless to the attacking team as they can't be scored upon (unless they clumsily hit the puck into their own goal). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
        • You're mistaken, Bugs; pulling the goaltender can occur in overtime, at least in the NHL (although it adds a fifth attacker rather than a sixth). When the NHL eliminated ties and went to the current format that gives one point for an overtime loss, they specifically added the rule that if the goalie was pulled for an extra attacker, and the team that pulled the goalie lost, that team would not get a point. This was done to prevent teams feeling they had nothing to lose by pulling the goaltender, as they get two points for a win and one point for an overtime loss. Eliminating the point for an overtime loss with the goalie pulled makes it a foolhardy move in all but the rarest situations, which I described above. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
          • So it did make some sense, for a while, to pull the goalie in overtime when the game was necessarily a tie at that point. That wouldn't happen in the playoffs, where there's none of this "points" tomfoolery - you either win, or you lose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Win or lose after 4 or 5 hours and in theory it may go on forever in the playoffs. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the beauty of it. The cleanest hockey you've ever seen is in those 4th, 5th and 6th periods. In the old regular season days, it was pretty simple: win = 2, tie = 1, lose = 0. I wonder if anyone has done any kind of study to retrofit a given recent season and see if any of the playoff qualifiers would have been different from what they were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about regular season. For example, what happens when one player from each team is charged a minor penalty in overtime? One from one and two from the other? Just curious as to how those are played. Although the rule about not getting a point if you pull the goaltender in overtime and lose was interesting. 71.146.8.82 (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thor 2

I just watched Thor: The Dark World yesterday, and the ending opened a can of questions. So okay, I get that Loki may have disguised himself as the warrior who informed Odin of Loki's apparent death. What I cannot get is, what happened to Odin? Must I wait till Thor 3 to get that answer? And how did he fake his death? This is unlike his apparent death in 2011's Thor. This time he was actually impaled! Ah, the God of Mischief...

Additionally, I also wish to ask (this time it's concerning non-fiction), why is it that for the credits in the poster, Anthony Hopkins is credited as "Anthony Hopkins as Odin", whereas Chris Hemsworth and the rest are simply credited by just their names? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I can think of two possible reasons for the difference in the credit:

1) AH negotiated that in his contract. Stars sometimes do that, as it puts more emphasis on them.

2) The makers of the film want everyone to know he has a major part, so people who like that actor will watch. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The term for this type of credit - where a very well-known actor takes a supporting role and receives this style of credit - is "last billing" or "special billing" [1]). See Billing (film). Valiantis (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Stadiums built for a particular major sporting event being demolished after that event

How common is it for a stadium that was built specifically built for a particular major sporting event (Olympics, World Cup, etc.) to be demolished immediately or soon after the completion of said event? I'm aware of certain examples, such as the Centennial Olympic Stadium being converted to Turner Field after the 1996 Summer Olympics (although this is more of a renovation than a demolition, but it's close and is probably the most famous example), the Théâtre des Cérémonies from the 1992 Winter Olympics (of which I can't find any pictures of online for some reason), the stadium which will be built at the Olympic Park of Hoenggye for the 2018 Winter Olympics, and the Basketball Arena and beach volleyball stadium from the 2012 Summer Olympics. I once read shortly after the announcement that Qatar would host the 2022 FIFA World Cup that at least some of the stadia would be demolished after the games, although I'm not sure if that plan is going ahead. Are there any other notable examples? And finally, what were the reasons why the aforementioned stadiums were demolished/are to be demolished instead of being renovated or downsized after the games? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this counts, but the Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield, which was built for the 1991 World Student Games, is being demolished because the city council can't afford to run it. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wukesong Baseball Field, built for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, was demolished immediately afterwards. It was planned that way, but it was still quite a nice facility. It has happened a few times with Olympic venues as they tend to be expensive to maintain and not to get much use, especially if they were designed for a sport that's not very popular in the host country. --Xuxl (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a fundamental flaw in the model of holding the Olympics in one city, which inevitably means they need far more stadium capacity for the few days of the Olympics than they need permanently. I have a hard time thinking that they make enough money from the Olympics to pay for the cost to build and then demolish a stadium. So, the result is probably the host country wasting lots of resources just for pride. I think they should move to a model of the Olympics in several locations. They could spread them out over a longer time frame, too, if people need time to travel from one location to another. StuRat (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That complaint has been circulated about the last World Cup, in South Africa, and the upcoming World Cup and Summer Olympics, in Brazil. Another example like Turner Field is the Montreal Olympic Stadium, which was modified to some extent to accommodate baseball, and as far as I know is well-nigh abandoned now. The sad fact is that a normal building can have many uses, but a stadium has only one type of use, and if abandoned by sports teams it becomes a derelict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Empire Field in Vancouver was built for a single season of Canadian Football and soccer while the real stadium (an Olympic venue, incidentally, was renovated (oddly, after the Olympics.) Mingmingla (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As others have said, it's fairly common for these facilities to become derelict once they aren't needed any more. The bobsled track in Lake Placid, New York has not come to this demise though due in part to the fact that they have it open as an attraction. The average person can go and pay to have a run down the track. I believe they have an employee actually driving and braking the bobsled but the rest of the people in the sled are paying tourists. And if I'm not mistaken, it's open year-round with special sleds for the summer months. Dismas|^(talk) 23:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Horror films starring Canadian actors?

Thank you in advance!!! Apart from the Final Destination franchise which I know is plagued by Canadians (in the good sense). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.144.135 (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Do the films in Category:Canadian horror films count? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 film) (Donald Sutherland) and The Lost Boys (Kiefer Sutherland), for two. David Cronenberg has acted in a few. Michael Ironside in Scanners, etc. --Michig (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both, but I was looking for newer films let's say 1990's onward. Does anybody know any film? Thank you anyway for your quick replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.144.135 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To re-iterate Narutolovehinata5, a good place to start is Category:Canadian horror films. If you know how to search on the page in your browser, look for "(20" to find films made after 1999 whose titles are shared by other Wikipedia articles.

Unfortunately, some of the categorizing is pretty loose. For example, The Woman in Black is essentially a British film but because it had some Canadian distribution it's categorized as also Canadian. You mentioned Final Destination, which is American with Canadian actors. Do the films need to not be Canadian themselves? ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 19:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A recent one is House of Wax starring Elisha Cuthbert. (And Paris Hilton!) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Scary Movie 3 with Pamela Anderson, or was I the only one that thought it was scary lol? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Zombie Hunter film music

For some reason I couldn't find the tune seemingly titled "Make Them Sweat" from Zombie Hunter . Anyone knows (perhaps it's an exclusive track for that film)? --Brandmeister^talk 19:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Two cricket questions: non-simultaneous runs, and wicket-knocking

Resolved

 – ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 20:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

In cricket, it is generally assumed that after a hit ball, both batsman will run at about the same pace and will cross the other crease at about the same time. What if, for some reason, just one of the batsman ran for two runs while the other stayed still, then the other ran two runs while the first one stood still? Would the second runner's first cross mean he'd "caught up" to the first runner's first run, thus scoring a full run at that point? And likewise with the second run leading to an actual increase in the score? Just how "non-simultaneous" can runs be?

I know that Law 18 says "A run is scored... so often as the batsmen, at any time while the ball is in play, have crossed and made good their ground from end to end." Does this mean the "crossing" is a key element of the run? Maybe it can be thought of this way: Step 1 is to cross paths. Step 2 is when either batsman made his ground. Step 3 is when the other batsman made his ground. For a run to be scored, all three steps must happen, in that order, and logically cannot overlap with the steps of the next run.

Meanwhile, I've seen fielders sometimes accidentally knock the wicket without using the ball. This seems to "invalidate" that wicket for the rest of the play, because no one is going to reset it until the play is over, and it can't get "re-knocked", its bails already being dislodged. What if this happened to both wickets? Surely the batsman wouldn't be deprived of all remaining possibilities for getting out, since that would in turn suggest that in the event of such erroneous fielding, they could score infinite runs. So how is that resolved? ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer the first part, yes the batsmen have to cross. If one of the batsmen ran and the other stayed still, not only would the run not count, but if the stumps were broken at the other end, his partner would be out because he hadn't made his ground. You are right - all 3 parts must happen. The Laws of Cricket do cover the second scenario you explain too, without giving chapter and verse, if there is any part of the wicket still in the ground the fielder must knock them out of the ground with the hand holding the ball. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I probably should have looked at http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-28-the-wicket-is-down/ . Thank you! ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 20:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the best illustration of Law 29 and the concept of "crossing" that I know of. And both English and Australian viewers can enjoy it, which is not a common cricketing occurrence. ;) Tevildo (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, the two batsmen have to pass each other at least once in order to get at least one run. I'm curious whether they have to run in a reasonably straight line from one wicket to the other, or can they meander (for who knows what reason) if they were so inclined? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The popping creases extend indefinitely either side of the stumps, so there's no explicit restriction on the route a batsman can take between them. A batsman who takes a "meandering" route for tactical reasons might very well be out "obstructing the field", and might be considered as having "left the field of play" and therefore being liable to a dismissal of "timed out" under Law 31 or "retired-out" within the provisions of Law 2.5 if his course takes him out of the ground. Tevildo (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)