Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 July 1

= July 1 =

Editing of TV programs shown in syndication
Oftentimes when a TV show is aired in syndication, the program has various scenes cut and edited out. Sometimes, the person editing does a lousy job of doing so (for example, in a sitcom, cutting out a scene upon which the joke in another scene is based). So here's my question. Why do the producers (owners) of the TV shows allow the syndicate to cut up and "butcher" their shows? Isn't the producer of the show concerned about the integrity of his work? When the syndicate does a bad job of editing, doesn't it make the producer's product look bad? So why would producers allow this and agree to this? Also, does the syndicate have any restrictions on their cuts and their edits? Or can they just cut and edit willy-nilly however they please? Does anyone know how all of this works? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The answer - as it often is - is money. Being in syndication is worth a lot of money for all interested parties. Add to this that the people selling the rights are usually not the people with an artistic stake in the product and you get the current situation. I do not know if there are any limits to the amount of cutting that can get done, but my guess is that there is none other than what the viewing market will bear. I've watched MASH episodes, for example, that had two different levels of cuts to them, so it's definitely not a standardized thing. Matt Deres (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * p.s. - A couple of links: Broadcast syndication, 100 episodes, some dollar figures here. If you made a sitcom and could sell it to syndication for a million bucks an episode, that would be pretty tough to pass up, no? Matt Deres (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A variation on the money theme is the fact that the amount of time allotted to commercials has increased over the years. These figures aren't exact but from the 60s through the 80s there were four to five minutes of commercials per half hour. In the 90s it was six+ minutes and today it is closer to eight. Thus, reruns of shows from the past all suffer from editing and it is rare when the edits are performed by someone who cares about plot development or continuity. Weird things can happen as well. When A&E aired UK programs last century I can remember watching an episode of Lillie that had one set of edits during the morning showing and a completely different set in its rerun four hours later. Go figure. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 12:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One strategy for dealing with those who would edit out important parts of your TV show or movie is to add some obvious "filler" that they can cut without affecting the integrity of the show. One movie director said he added a one hour trek through a des s ert, with no dialog, so the editors would cut that down instead of the important parts.  For TV shows, they could add 5 minutes of credits, which are an obvious first choice to either cut outright, or push down into a corner while ads run. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh heh. I think you mean desert StuRat. OTOH I have had a dessert or two that were delicious enough to revel in for an hour or more. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite right. I've had some so big they take an hour to eat, in any case. StuRat (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Or so bad they take an hour. Liver-and-onions ice cream, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it still being ice cream, I'm sure you'd hold your nose and power through. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not just syndicated TV, either. They way I watch UFC live, I either see the FOX version or the BT Sport version. From Britain, I see the minute between preliminary fight rounds, where the cornermen pep up the fighters. From the US, I see razors and deodorant and cell phones. Once the main card begins, though, Britain usually takes a commercial or two (almost always for online gambling), while the US version has a post-fight interview. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue with US-originated programming on UK TV channels is that there are fairly strict regulations in the UK as to how much advertising can be shown in any given time period and also on how often breaks may be taken.
 * It is relatively unusual for a recorded US TV show to be cut to fill a UK TV slot (as the UK allows less minutes of advertising per hour than occur in the US). A US "hour-long" show which actually runs for about 42 minutes nowadays shown in an hour slot on UK TV easily fills that slot without need for editing, In fact there is (on average) only 9 minutes of commercial advertising permitted per hour on most channels.
 * However, if the TV show is screened live from the US, although apparently (as per the above link) the UK channel can replicate the US break pattern, they still have to meet the overall limit on the amount of advertising across their schedule, so may have to place adverts differently. Also, in the UK, generally very short breaks for single adverts are not permitted, so this might not fit with the way the US fits adverts in between rounds. Also one must consider that UK viewers have a different expectation of where adverts will fit into a broadcast and how adverts will be signalled. (One doesn't go straight to the advert from the programme without some sort of indication that it's now an advert). Similarly in recorded shows, a US-originated show may shape its story beats around where the advert breaks will fall on US TV. Sometimes these are not where UK channels can place adverts, so for UK screenings the breaks are shoe-horned in at inappropriate moments. Valiantis (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I like how they signal their ad breaks. American TV can be jarring, especially when the commercial is a half louder than the program. The commercials are often different lengths across the pond, so the station ID doubles as filler for however many seconds till a live American show's ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * HGTV seems to be the worst that way. They have absolutely no transition to ads, like showing a splash screen with the name of the show for 5 seconds before and after the ad break.  So, it's like "Next we will take a look at the bedroom at Red Holman Chevrolet you can buy any car for just $99 down !". StuRat (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So, basically, the syndicate can just edit, chop up, and butcher the original program willy-nilly as they see fit, and the owners/producers have no issue with this? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't say they have no issue with it, it's just out of their control. Internet distribution of programs may avoid those annoying middlemen who have the right to destroy their "creative vision".


 * Of course, there are shows that could actually benefit from some editing. The original Outer Limits, for example, had many episodes that seemed like they added an extraneous romance, etc., just to stretch it to fill the hour slot.  I would have preferred spending my hour watching two tight episodes rather than one crammed with filler. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. But I still don't understand.  If you are the owner of the product, how is any of this out of your control?  If you own it, you can choose (or not) to offer it to syndication.  And I assume that you can draw up specific terms in the contract (what is or is not allowed).  A few weeks back, I posted a similar question (essentially: why do syndicated shows air in random episode order as opposed to chronological episode order).  In that thread, the owners/producers had very tight rules about what episodes can be aired and in which order.  Why would the owners care so intently about the order of episode airing, yet not care that these very episodes are being arbitrarily cut and chopped up (usually for the worse, not for the better)?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Because, like others have said, once the TV channels get their hands on it, they can show episodes in any damn order they please, and, as has long been obvious, programming decisions are apparently made by monkeys randomly pushing keys on a typewriter. It's a bit like you owning all the episodes of The Bold and the Beautiful on separate DVDs; there's no law requiring you to watch them in order (in fact, watching them in random order might actually make the plot line make some sort of sense).  Same with shows that have discrete episodes with no ongoing story line, like Hogan's Heroes or Gilligan's Island or Get Smart or Green Acres (OK, I'm showing my age).  Viewers don't know or care what order they're screened in; well, the TV stations assume viewers have the same attitude to the ones with a story line, or think they wouldn't notice (which for many viewers may well be the case; the ones who would notice are probably people who wouldn't be seen dead watching such dross anyway, except for "accidentally" viewing the show every night for 20 years).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a huge difference between the two cases. As far as showing them in order, the networks are usually fine with that, as long as it doesn't require much effort on their part, since it doesn't cost them anything and may make the viewers happier.  But telling them they can't show as many ads during a show would have a massive impact on their profitability, so they aren't likely to give in on that one. StuRat (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It can be difficult to wrap your head around, I agree. In such cases, keep re-reading the link I gave regarding syndication shelling out a million bucks per episode until it stops being confusing. Syndication requires at least 80 episodes - and usually at least 100 episodes. Multiply that by a million bucks an episode. After a hundred episodes, most series are either getting ready to wrap up the show or are moving into the most expensive portion of the series, where leads are requesting larger and larger sums per show. You know what would make for a nice cherry on the end of the series or a sizable down-payment on the costly bills that are piling up? A cheque for a hundred million dollars. Money. Goes with everything, you know? Matt Deres (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Right. And in case that hundred million dollar cheque isn't clear, the producer and the owner are now totally distinct entities. That's the sad part about entertainment. If you want your baby to grow big and strong, you need to sell it first. It's not like raising oxen (probably a delightful hobby/historical drama). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

tv series whose theme containing some scenes from their movie
Are 1983 series Alvin and the Chipmunks and 1987 series Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles the only ones to have a opening theme containing scenes from their movie? For the chipmunks, the chipmunk adventure and for tmnt, the 1990 movie tmnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.18 (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How did a 1987 series have clips from a movie released in 1990? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make it clear. this clip [] shows the scenes from the 1987 film Chipmunk Adveture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.219.184.237 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so how did a 1983 series have clips from a movie released in 1987? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And Turtles in Time might explain the other bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have misunderstood your question about TMNT. Season 8, 9 and 10 opening themes had some scenes that were from the 1990 tmnt movie. Here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMrPz4dnYKQ, take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.49 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup Overtime
If a World Cup game is tied at the end of regulation plus stoppage time in the elimination rounds, do the rules say that two overtime periods are played, even if the game is untied at the end of the first overtime period? Apparently so, because I thought that Team USA had lost after the first overtime period to Team Belgium, but then (as I was about to stop watching), play resumed. If so, that rule is very different from the method of tie-breaking in any other major sport in the United States. In basketball, for instance, an unlimited number of overtime periods are played, but the game ends at the end of any overtime period if the tie has been broken. In ice hockey, an overtime period is played, followed by a shoot-out. In American football, overtime in the NFL is modified sudden death. In baseball, the game ends if the visiting team is leading at the end of an extra inning, or if the home team takes the lead in an extra inning. Association football has rules that seem strange to Americans. Do the rules really provide that a full 30 minutes of overtime are played, even if a team is leading after the first overtime period? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Overtime (sports) what we're seeing in the World Cup is not necessarily how knockout tournaments or there-must-be-a-winner situations are handled in other soccer events. I would say the way they're doing it in the World Cup is kind of like how basketball is done. Given the number of various injuries as a match wears on, making them play till they drop (as with the NHL) would be too much to take. If you ask me, the shootout sucks. But it's the best thing they've been able to come up with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is another section of one of our articles with some detailed info Association football. The tournaments that FIFA is in charge of have had the two 15 minute overtime and then penalty kicks format at least as far back the first World Cup that I got to see extensive coverage of back in 82. The (in)famous semi final between France and West Germany in 82 saw France leading 3 to 2 at the end if the first OT. They did experiment with a "golden goal" and then a "silver goal" for a few years in the late 90s and early 00s. For more info on this make sure to read the last paragraph of the section that I linked to. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Think of it as just one 30-minute overtime period, with a break in the middle. (The NHL used to do this as well, there was a 10-minute overtime period and they played the whole thing no matter how many goals were or were not scored.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that sides are switched halfway through extra time. Since football is played outdoors, there may be disadvantages to playing in one direction compared to the other (wind, sun, slope of the pitch [not on World Cup level, one would assume], seating of supporter groups) and switching sides balances these out (to a certain degree). --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)