Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 December 16

= December 16 =

Can anyone explain Interstellar Questions?
Question by Ram nareshji (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC) deleted as possible copyvio as remarked below given the lack of any reassurance. Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a film or TV show you're talking about, they can do anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This question was copypasted from physicsforums.com. Questioner has been warned about this behaviour.--Shantavira|feed me 19:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Medical Examiner
For any corpse, does it only take one day for a Medical Examiner to Determine if that particular Person was Raped against (his/her) will before the Victim (commits suicide or gets murdered)?

For example, If that Female Victim was actually raped against (her will) before Death, then does it only take 1 day for a Medical Examiner to have a Positive Report stating that Victim was automatically Raped against her Will?(50.173.3.162 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)).


 * A medical examiner cannot determine this. Consent cannot be determined in a medical examination. Britmax (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

These next 2 questions are about Television.

Actually on Television, for any Corpse does it only take one day for a Medical Examiner to Determine if that particular Person was Raped against (his/her) will before the Victim (commits suicide or gets murdered)?

Actually on Television, for Example, If that Female Victim was actually raped against (her will) before Death, then does it only take 1 day for a Medical Examiner to have a Positive Report stating that Victim was automatically Raped against her Will?(50.173.3.170 (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)).


 * Are you asking whether Television has a firm convention to that effect, contrary to RealLife™? —Tamfang (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking generally, the time it takes will be the time it takes. A good medical examiner may have to conduct any number of tests depending on the state of the body and exactly what the initial findings provide. Five seconds might be enough to determine sex took place, but semen analysis, checks for contusions and abrasions, and a variety of other things may have to be done depending on circumstances. What you're asking is like wondering how long a hospital appointment should take. Some take minutes, some take months. Matt Deres (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

what does "foul to give" mean in basketball?
In NBA, Announcer says "foul to give" at the end of the game, please some one explain.

what i understand is if we foul at act of shooting other team will get free throws, but what does foul to give, even i download NBA official rules PDF, even that PDF also never explained, didn't even mention "foul to give" in that PDF, so i am trying reference desk.

i am not copying this question from other sites, i am asking this question from my heart. Ram nareshji (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As I stated in an answer to one of your previous questions, a "foul to give" means the team will not trigger the bonus if they foul. It even says it in the very first paragraph of Bonus (basketball). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

when will "foul to give" will be used? i mean, at which quarter of the game?

& also A team has 3 fouls left, can they foul B Team without getting penalty is meaning of "a foul to give"?

can shooting fouls allowed without getting penalty for A Team? Ram nareshji (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be used at any time, but practically, the purpose of "giving a foul" intentionally is to stop the clock at the end of the game. When a team is losing towards the end of a game, but is also out of time-outs, the winning team can practically "run out the clock" and never relinquish possession.  If the winning team is "in the bonus" however, when fouled they have to shoot free-throws and the other team gets the ball.  This is a very important point, because it allows the losing team the chance to get possession back; really aside from stealing the ball, it's the only way the losing team can force a possession change.  However, teams can only force a shooting foul in a non-shooting situation when the opposing team is in the bonus, so when they are not in the bonus, the announcers on TV will tell us all how many fouls are left to "give" away to reach that situation.  Technically, the concept applies at all times of the game, though it is usually only relevant to mention it at the end of games in specific situations, which is why you only hear about it at that time.  -- Jayron 32 11:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jayron32, but for every foul, they have to shoot free-throws and the other team gets the ball so what is the use"foul to give in"?

Also can you please explain again what does stop the clock at the end of the game? or else i find a basketball full match at youtube., so can you explain with that video? Ram nareshji (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget a full game video. Let me try to explain it this way.


 * The Celtics are playing the Lakers. The score is 91-86 in favor of the Celtics, with about 1 minute left to play.  Let's say the Lakers have two team fouls in the fourth quarter.  That means they would have to foul the Celtics twice more to force them to start taking shots.  Here's the way it could play out:


 * 1:00 Lakers foul the Celtics. Team foul 3, the Celtics are given the ball to inbounds (as is the rule for any non-shooting foul when you AREN'T in the bonus). Clock stops for inbounds.  Celtics have one more foul to give.
 * 0:59 Lakers foul Celtics as soon as the inbounds happens. Team foul 4.  The Celtics are given the ball to inbounds (as is the rule for any non-shooting foul when you AREN'T in the bonus). Clock stops for inbounds.  Celtics will be in the bonus the very next time they are fouled.
 * 0:58 Lakers foul Celtics as soon as the inbounds happens. Team foul 5.  The Celtics now get to shoot 2 free-throws.  Lets say they miss the first and make the second.  Now the score is 91-87 in favor of the Celtics, but now the Lakers get the ball to inbounds following the successful second free-throw from the Celtics.  Clock starts on the inbounds.
 * 0:50 Lakers set up a quick 3 pointer, and are successful. Score is now 91-90 in favor of Celtics.  Celtics inbounds on a running clock.
 * 0:44 Lakers foul Celtics as soon as the inbounds happens. Celtics now get to shoot 2 free-throws.  They make both.  93-90 Lakers get the ball back on the inbounds following  the free-throws, drive down the court, and score another three-pointer.  Score is tied 93-93 with about 30 seconds left; with a 24 second clock, the Lakers have now guaranteed themselves last possession, which is pretty good considering they were down by four points 30-seconds ago.


 * If the Lakers did not use the strategy of intentionally fouling the Celtics at the end of the game, the Celtics would be able to run the 24 second clock down to nothing; with a 4 point lead they would have wasted at LEAST 48 of the 60 seconds remaining, and the Lakers would STILL have had to score twice to bring up the same situation they did with fouls. That's why teams try to force fouls at the end of the game when down.  Because they get possession of the ball after the free throws they can get the ball into their own hands with less time off the clock.  -- Jayron 32 17:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 thanks for detailed informations, but you posted answer in american english, why can't you change in britian or simple english,

so i can easily understand. First you said only 2 Team fouls are there, but at 1:00 you mention Team Foul 3, if two are remaining, what does Team Foul 3 mean? Ram nareshji (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Troll, Foul 3 means the one after 2. Go entertain yourself elsewhere. --Onorem (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Onorem i am not trolling wiki reference desk, i have a doubt, so i am posting it, that's all. User:Jayron32 can you explain just after the game score tied 93-93. Ram nareshji (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The fuck you aren't. Carry on Troll. I'm not going to respond again. --Onorem (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Onorem wiki reference desk is user friendly, so why are posting the vulgar words here? Ram nareshji (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In NBA 2K14 PC, how to use substitute, Time out, Buy & Sell Players?
In NBA 2K14 PC, how to use substitute, Time out, Buy & Sell Players features?

i am not copying this question from other sites, i am asking this question from my heart. Ram nareshji (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Best source for this information would be either the product instruction manual, or if that's not available, the publisher's website should also help. -- McDoob  AU93  14:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Milli Vanilli's Grammy
On the way into work this morning, I heard a song from famous lip-syncers Milli Vanilli. I know their Best New Artist Grammy Award was retracted after it was revealed that more-talented yet less-photogenic studio singers were actually singing the band's songs. My question is this: since the only thing changing is the face of the artist (that is, the music is just as catchy, regardless of the singer), was there a reason they didn't just give the award to the actual singers instead of the two faces of the group? -- McDoob AU93  14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you know whether a vote was based strictly on the song and not also including the visual? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Valid point, but I would presume that since the Grammys are supposed to represent audio works that the visuals wouldn't make a difference. For further analysis, look at Daft Punk. They've won several Grammys—deservedly so—but we have no idea if the men in the helmets are the ones that recorded the music that was nominated and subsequently won. -- McDoob  AU93  17:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on reporting at the time, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which awards the Grammys, considered recognizing the actual singers but decided against it. "Pilatus and Morvan, the dancing, dreadlocked frontmen for the group, suggested the award go to the three singers who actually performed the vocals for Milli Vanilli. [Academy President Michael] Greene said that was 'not a possibility.' In announcing its unprecedented move, the academy said it recognizes that packaging groups is part of the music industry... but misleading record labels are unacceptable, Greene said. 'The integrity of that album label copy obviously was flawed. It said "Vocals: Rob and Fab." That was just absolutely false,' he said." Pop duo's Grammy award revoked (Elber, Associated Press, November 19, 1990.)


 * Some consideration was also given to awarding the Grammy to one of the other nominees but the Academy declined that option as well. "'The Grammy process does not, and is not intended to produce a ranked result," Michael Green, president of the Academy, said... 'There is one winner. There is no first runner-up.'" Revoked Grammy to be unclaimed, (Gainesville Sun, December 5, 1990.) - EronTalk 18:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think about it, the real performers were ultimately willing participants in the fraud, so it would not be appropriate to reward them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Movie marketing budget and viewings
What's the relationship between marketing spend and the number of people who see a film in the movie industry? I'd love to see the ratio for several successful films and also a graph if there are any out there.--Goose Geyser (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * One thing to watch for with such statistics, though, is that marketing may very well get more people to watch the movie quickly, but in the long term word of mouth will make it more or less popular. So, I suspect you'd see a strong correlation between marketing budgets and initial sales, but not total sales, over, say, 10 years.  Then of course, sometimes the marketing is totally wrong, like when they tried to sell Kindergarten Cop as a cute kids movie when in reality it was an extremely violent film that no little kids should ever see. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)