Entertainment desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

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.

October 11[edit]

Highest Grossing films by year[edit]

Is there a Wiki page for the highest grossing films in (for example) 2014, worldwide?

2014 in film has the Highest-grossing films of 2014, worldwide, with the gross to-date.

There are about 10 lists by country for each year, eg List of 2014 box office number-one films in the United States, but nothing for the world – that I can see.

NB1: Curiously, Canada (on Wiki) stops in 2010. NB2: World Almanac cites US and Canada figures combined (from Rentrak).

MBG02 (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any Wikipedia page or source with that info. List of 2014 box office number-one films in the United States#Highest-grossing films is also about life-time gross of films released in 2014. The winner only made $124,987 in 2014. I guess sources omit sorting by calendar year gross because it seems meaningless to compare the whole gross of some films to partial grosses of other films. I know one case where calendar year gross is used: Comparing whole studios like https://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yep; meaningless, but they’ve been doing it for songs (and albums) for quite a while.

I’d also like to get an idea of the size of film markets, or per capita spending – roughly – and to see if English-speaking films (and home-grown) are growing in China, India, EU, etc... also something I haven’t (yet) found on Wiki. MBG02 (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Films are in theaters for less than a year (except rare rereleases years later) so it's possible to get a final number in a reasonable time. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

television trope: the "young girl enters puberty" episode[edit]

I've noticed that when tv shows do this, they never tend to time it correctly. But, why?

For example both of the regular young female characters in Lizzie McGuire were shown wearing bras before the "we need a bra" storyline. To use a retro example, Samantha Smith's character in Lime Street has her first period in one episode, even though a feature on Samantha's address to a college student audience earlier that year had noted that she was showing "obvious signs of puberty" in the chest and had started wearing makeup... so it would seem a bit too late for a first period. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, the actress has usually been cast for the part long before the idea to do the "coming of age" episode is mooted. For another, who says its in the wrong order? My girlfriend's 11 year old daughter has been wearing a bra for several months now and has recently started wearing makeup, but has not yet had a period. --Khajidha (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless[edit]

First off, I'm American. My wife and I have been getting into watching the British game show, Pointless. We've watched 3 episodes now. The jackpots don't seem very high at all. The highest I've seen is just £2,500. Is this standard for British game shows? I'm kind of used to American game show prizes which can be quite a bit higher than that. A single question in Jeopardy can get you $2,000. A single puzzle can get you more than $2,500 in Wheel of Fortune. And The Price is Right regularly gives out new cars. So, that's why I say that £2,500 seems low. Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 01:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the best-watched, best funded game shows in America, and have budgets many times larger than most game shows. Most American game shows (numerically speaking) feature jackpots at smaller values. The most recent run of Chain Reaction (game show), for example (2014-2016) featured $5,000 jackpots. Idiotest had a $10,000 top winnings. Cash Cab's highest payout was $6,400, but most winners take home less than $1,000. Snap Decision also tops out at $10,000. --Jayron 32 03:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Cash Cab' when staying in a hotel occasionally. But haven't seen the others you mention. I watch very little television, so I was using what examples I'm familiar with. †dismas†|^(talk) 13:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Cab is a bit of an oddity. The "set" is the inside of an actual cab. You'd think that because production costs must be rather low, they could afford to offer somewhat larger prizes. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless is a BBC show, where the value of prizes is usually much lower even than on British commercial channels. I think this is largely because the BBC doesn't want to be seen giving away too much "licence payers' money". It's more about prestige - and the "coveted Pointless trophy". In fact, the more prestigious shows tend have less-valuable prizes - the winner of Mastermind gets a glass bowl. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? has a large prize, although not the largest on UK TV, if this list is to be believed http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/All_Time_Winners_List --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millionaire is on ITV, not BBC, so isn't funded by license payers. And it's decidedly low-brow, compared to Mastermind. Channel 4 did something similar with 15 to 1, which offered remarkable but non-cash prizes to series winners only. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is a bit messy (gets tied up with voice-over details) but: Fifteen_to_One#Prizes --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all. I think that pretty well answers my question. †dismas†|^(talk) 13:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's another difference. Pointless fills a low value slot in the schedule. It's tea-time viewing, not peak. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the jackpot go into five figures a few times, albeit rarely. It goes up daily (as you will be aware) so it just takes a run of shows with no winners to scale up pretty quickly. Personally I wonder if it will get to a stage where there will be many pointless answers due to the popularity of the show - they often comment on "that old Pointless favourite answer...", which is no longer pointless. The flip side is that is has helped educate it's viewers I suppose! gazhiley 14:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Pointless has a rolling jackpot, which means the prize it gives out every day is fixed. Even if they one day gave out £1m, it'd mean there'd been whole series where they handed out nothing. By contrast, Millionaire, in theory, could hand out a million every episode. The thinking is different for ITV. Publicity pulls in viewers, which converts to ad sales, so giving out more money, actually pulls in more money. The BBC has no such mechanism. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article from 2000 says that Who Wants to Be a Millionaire is partly funded by the premium-rate phone calls of those wishing to be contestants - one couple had made 700 calls. At that time, "The cost of the show now (with the prize money) is nearing £200,000 for ITV. But that is still cheaper than making an hour of original drama or comedy". Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that there's a difference between a rolling jackpot and the potential for 1 million, I don't think it's as simple as Dweller's comment seems to suggest. First as a minor nitpick, AFAIK WWTBAM could theoretically give away more than 1 million per episode, or less even if everyone won the grand prize, it depended on how long the contest took which I expect is something they could fool around with legally and above board. (I mean they don't show every minute they shot. I don't know how they taped it, but how they want to edit it is something they would be entitled to change on the fly.)

Anyway more to the point, as Alansplodge comment indicates, the funding for such shows is complicated, but is surely going to be based on the assumption that the average winnings is well below 1 million. If somehow everyone did win 1 million every episode, while they would have to cope with that, they'd either cancel or rejig the show. In other words, while the jackpoint point is valid, the larger issue IMO is that the average winnings were targeted at a higher level.

It's true that advertising means more revenue for a popular show. And I'm sure there would be more callers if everyone saw people winning 1 million all the time. But I'm doubtful it will make up for the added cost especially since it's going to get boring watching people win 1 million after a while. And I'm fairly sure the BBC could cope if they really needed to with a show where the prizes were unexpectedly 1 million instead of whatever average they estimated.

While I'm sure the BBC Charter etc have complicated goals etc, I'm also sure there's some expectation that more popular shows would tend to get higher budgets (along with the influences of all their other requirements). So while advertising is different, I'm pretty sure popularity is a factor whatever the structure. Of course, as others have mentioned the licencing fee issue and differing expectations etc may mean there would be less acceptance for funding such a show, a related but IMO distinct point.

BTW, as for coping, AFAIK it isn't that uncommon such shows have some level of insurance. These sources [1] [2] discuss that for the US version in ~2000. (It has both an excess and a maximum. And even despite that, the insurance company felt they were paying more than they expected.) I don't know if the UK version did, I can't recall any discussions surrounding insurance in the cheating scandals so maybe not.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do contestant winnings in the UK get taxed at the same kind of horrible rate that the US ones do? I did a cursory search online, but got mixed answers. If not, that could supply part of the answer. Matt Deres (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not as income, but maybe as part of inheritance tax. For any lurkers who are in National lottery syndicates, that short article is worth a read. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wins of sums of money are not taxed as such, unless you are placing your bets at a bookmaker's and you can elect to pay tax on the stake or on the winnings. If you win a lottery prize, there is no tax payable as it is classed as a windfall. However, any interest accruing from that sum is taxable as income in the normal way. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just mention Oblivious, where the top prize was $500. The Wikipedia article for the British version doesn't mention any money at all, but its External Link notes £500 per question. This extra generosity was clearly not sustainable. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metal horseshoe on British soldiers uniform[edit]

Resolved

I've been watching the TV series Hawkeye and the Last of the Mohicans, and some of the British officers have a horseshoe shaped piece of metal on their chests. A good example can be seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuUeHCYB4oU&t=205 I assume it is just for decoration. Any further information appreciated. Thanks! --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See gorget. Even before I watched the video, I thought it was going to be a gorget since it's pretty recognizable once you know what it is. †dismas†|^(talk) 13:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --TrogWoolley (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]