Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 January 9

= January 9 =

NFL coach contracts
The compensation of coaches in the NFL is, for some reason, public knowledge in many cases. My questions: (a) Why is it public knowledge that a coach is being paid, say, US$3 million per year for each of the next 3 years? This is very proprietary information at other businesses with the exception of the CEOs of public companies, which is for reasons of transparency for shareholders, which is not a concern in the NFL. (b) If a coach is fired after 1 year, is he paid for the remaining years, as you'd expect in any other business? Or is there some coach-specific arrangement in the NFL that treats this situation in a specific way? Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the entertainment industry in general, it seems that salaries are or become widely known. This has been the case for a long time. Just why that is, is something I've wondered about also. You can see it for universities, especially those that are publicly-funded; but professional sports are private industry. As far as compensation after being fired, with both college and pro coaches (as well as pro athletes) that would be a function of however their contract reads. Typically, they would be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If coaches salaries are applicable to the NFL salary cap, teams may have to disclose those salaries. I know that players salaries end up being public for much the same reason.  Head coaches aren't treated all that different from players; for example if a head coach under contract to one team is signed by another, the coaches former team may be due compensatory draft picks much as if he had been a free agent player.  When Bill Parcells left the Patriots for the Jets, the Jets gave the Pats a first round draft pick in return.  -- Jayron  32  04:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-player salaries are not charged against the salary cap. As for why the salaries are reported -- I'd think there's a good bit of preening involved in addition to the other points presented above.  The coach's agent, in particular (I can only assume that coaches have agents) wants other potential clients to know what a great job he's done. &mdash; Lomn 14:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Child actors
In the 1997 movie Full Monty, which contains strong language and adult themes, William Snape (born 1985) played the part of a prepubescent boy. Another example would be an episode ("Ten") of Men Behaving Badly where Dorothy's ten year old nephew comes to visit the main characters. In the episode, the boy discovers Gary's "lady book" (a porn magazine) and takes part in dialogue containing adult themes. I don't find this particularly offensive, but I'm just curious - where do producers find child actors for productions that most parents wouldn't let their children see, let alone be a part of? 88.112.62.154 (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably through professional Casting agencies, just like all the other actors. Consider that firstly, the non-linear and disconnected way that films and TV shows are routinely made means that actors aren't necessarily exposed to any shot that they're not actually in, so a Child actor need not see/hear anything in other parts of the piece than their own scenes, and need not see the completed film/show; secondly, clever editing could appear to juxtapose them with action/dialogue they were not actually involved in; thirdly, a prop that, in the storyline, is supposedly obscene (e.g. Gary's "lady book") may be an innocuous dummy in shots where the child is actually in contact with it; fourthly, both the child actors and their parents may be more liberal, worldly wise and professional in attitude than your personal standards might suggest; and finally, the employment of minors in acting is (at least in most of the First World) strictly regulated and supervised to avoid their exploitation, overwork, loss of schooling and so on (our Child actor article is regrettably sketchy and North American-centric in this regard), so any director who allowed transgressive treatment would run a serious risk of professional and legal sanctions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer. The "lady book" did feature, as far as I can remember, seminaked women in the cover (whether it was a prop or actual porn mag, I don't know) and since the show was made in the 1990's, I don't think they could've shopped it in that convincingly. The magazine was clearly seen held by the boy, so it couldn't have been a "stunt" either. I myself see no problem in this (as long as the children are not mistreated and I find the "lady book" scene really hilarious) as many parents are (in my opinion) excessively protective about swearing and non-sexual nudity, and I asked the question out of pure curiosity. Thanks for your comprehensive answer in any case! 88.112.62.154 (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a scene in Kramer vs. Kramer in which a fully-nude JoBeth Williams comes out of Dustin Hoffman's bedroom into the hallway and runs into his young son (Justin Henry). She plays it as being startled, nervously covering up, etc. He reacts as blandly as if she were wearing a business suit. One would assume that there was some cinematic trickery going on there. Maybe someone knows? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a scene in Clerks where Randall is ordering movies over the phone for the video store. A woman comes in with a young child in her arms and asks if he can get Happy Scrappy Hero Pup.  Getting back to his phone conversation, he asks the distributor for a number of titles, all of them pornographic with various words in the titles which you'd rather a child didn't repeat at the school playground.  If you pay attention though, you can see that the child is never in the shot while he's saying the most offensive stuff.  The kid is there while he's saying things like "Yes, I'd like to order the following titles..." and there's a shot of the kid, without Randall in the shot although his voice was edited in later as a voice over, so again the kid didn't actually hear the words.  And finally, you may be interested to know that Thora Birch was a minor when her nude scene was shot for the film American Beauty.  Her parents had to agree to her being in the scene.  And they, as well as child labor representatives, were present during the filming.  And around here somewhere, unless it got deleted, is a list of films in which minors appear while nude.  Dismas |(talk) 13:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Phoebe Cates was not quite 18 when filming wrapped for 1982's Paradise (1982 film). While she showed plenty of skin, the more explicit (i.e. adult) stuff was done with doubles. More problematic, perhaps, was a very young Brooke Shields in 1978's Pretty Baby, filmed when she was only about 12. How they got away with that one is still a mystery. But I think she was shielded from the relatively explicit stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A bigger outcry was made over Tatum O'Neal's smoking a cigarette with her father when she was aged 9 - I think the movie was Paper Moon? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Christian Slater was 16 when his nude scene in The Name of the Rose was shot. I don't know what sorts of accomodations were made for him.  Woogee (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When the then 11-year old Anna Paquin won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in 1994 for The Piano, she was too young to see the film in the cinema. Astronaut (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And then there was Traci Lords who started in porn at the age of 15. Astronaut (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever this topic comes up, I always think of Danny Lloyd in The Shining (film). [Shudders....] Kingsfold (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No. 1 rock and roll band in the land?
In 1977, who would have been the number one rock band in the United Kingdom? Arsectomy (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on your criteria. Do you mean in terms of album sales, singles sales, popular impact or what? If you're talking about albums sales, it was probably someone like Pink Floyd, who put Animals out that year.  In terms of popular and cultural impact, though, there can only be one answer. --Richardrj talkemail 10:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (after EC) Depends on your definition of rock, and also how you define "number one". By the standards of that time, Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd would have been Number One in terms of sales, concerts etc. However, punk rock was also popular and so maybe the Sex Pistols in terms of media coverage. And don't forget Elvis Presley and Marc Bolan died in this year, and so their sales went up accordingly. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stones had also been playing for years by then and had built up quite the following. And on the other side of the longevity spectrum, The Clash had just released their first album which did very well for them.  Dismas |(talk) 11:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I realise I have got the timing slightly wrong - I'm actually thinking of late October 1976, so a month before the Sex Pistols' first single came out.Arsectomy (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you still haven't really given us a measuring stick by which to gauge "number one rock band". Do you mean sales?  Or just general sense of hype and popularity?  If so, we've pretty much supplied a number of good candidates.  And limiting this according to when the Sex Pistols released their first single, are you therefore looking for punk bands that the Sex Pistols would be displacing?  Dismas |(talk) 13:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Certainly Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd would have been up there, as well as Queen, The Rolling Stones and The Who. With hindsight, it's easy to see punk rock as seeming to be much more dominant than it actually was at the time - it grabbed wide social attention, and attracted many of the teenagers of the time, but most "rock fans" even then were in their 20s and 30s, and the overwhelming majority of them (except for people like John Peel and, er, me.. as the first person in Exeter to buy a Sex Pistols record - true!!... ) rejected punk as "unmusical". The top albums in the UK in 1976 - here - were from Abba, The Beach Boys, Glen Campbell (!), Slim Whitman (!!) and Queen.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: @Dismas - the Pistols didn't "displace" any punk bands in the UK - together with The Damned (whose first single came out in October 1976), they were the first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PPS: Also honourable mentions for Wings and Rod Stewart - close to the top of many lists of "best artists" at the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, hype and popularity - thinking about in the popular imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsectomy (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case it would probably be Queen, who had played in Hyde Park, London to an audience of 150,000 that year. Zep didn't tour in 1976 because of Robert Plant's injuries sustained in a car crash in Greece. Floyd were recording the Animals album. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Were Queen bigger than Slade and Status Quo in late '76? Arsectomy (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Slade's peak had passed by then and the Quo were never more than a metal-lite band, albeit a good one. --Richardrj talkemail 16:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Slade were never regarded as a "rock band"  - they were definitely considered "pop" (though good live, apparently).  To clarify, given that they are described as a "rock band" in their article - over the years the definition of what is a "rock band" has grown wider than it was in the 1970s, when there was a fairly clear split between "rock bands" and "pop groups".  One of the many contributions punk made was to blur or get rid of that distinction - the Pistols, Clash etc. were "rock bands" playing 2-minute songs.  With hindsight, Slade can now legitimately be classed as "rock", but that's not how it seemed at the time.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this chart, the of top 10 singles in the UK in 1976, none were by rock bands. For the top albums of 1976, the only rock band there is probably The Eagles.  This chart:  has a few more "rock" bands listed; it has a few differences from the first two, and has Queen's Night at the Opera among its top ten for 1976.  That page notes that that The Story of The Who peaked at #2 in October of that year, so you could make a case that "The Who" was the most popular rock band in October 1976.  -- Jayron  32  04:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As further evidence for The Who, this database: (select "october 1976" for both start and end dates, and select order by highest position) indicates that a reissue of The Who's song "Substitute" peaked at #7 during October 1976; no other true rock band had a higher charting single during that month.  -- Jayron  32  04:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, as noted on The Official Charts site above, "Enjoying their one and only week on top in October was Dr Feelgood with Stupidity". My vote goes to this amazing band, still touring but with two of its founder members unfortunately having died. Still amazing live though. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

David Goldstrom
Does anyone know where I can find out more about him? He's the ski jumping commentator on British Eurosport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a bio at http://equestrianentertainment.com/frame-bodytalentbank.htm#dg Dalliance (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! A man of many talents! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)