Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2019 December 16
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 15 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
December 16[edit]
SVU - Part 38[edit]
I sometimes watch Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. One thing that intrigues me is whenever there's a courtroom scene, such as when an alleged perp appears in court (and there are usually at most 2 such scenes per episode), the caption-thing always refer to "Part 38" or "Part 46" or Part whatever. This one has Part 21, for example. What on earth is this a reference to? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- The New York Supreme Court is divided into "parts" which are the various divisions of the court system. It's basically a name for a specific division of the court system in New York. Each court district in New York is divided into parts where each part is assigned to a specific justice of the courts (judge). Here is the judicial directory for the Manhattan judicial district (First Judicial District, New York County), and you can see each judge is assigned a "part" It's just the particular way that the court system is divided up. So "part 21" would just refer to the specific judge & staff that was presiding over that trial, and the specific courtroom they are working in. It's just the peculiar way New York organizes its court system.--Jayron32 19:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that. So, it's really super-irrelevant to the story line, but it's in there merely as some sort of corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, I was just looking for you in the next chapter of our derivative and lazy saga. Small world. By my peculiar logic, that counts as either Act III or the complete extended trilogy, so it was an honour to work beneath you at this desk. Really learned a lot, thanks.
- With that said, Jayron32 deserves the most credit for the entire Q&A universe since I've been here. Without his tireless dedication to concision and precision in providing honest-to-God reference material, this project would have sunk several times over, and none of us supporting cast could have turned it into the neverending story it gradually became. Not the rabbit with his racing snail, not the nobody, not even the stupid rat. Jack, Jay, Bugs, Medeis, someone I'm forgetting and Stu, this one's for you!
- Merry Christmas from the sewers of Gotham, and a heartfelt Hell yeah to everyone, regardless of nationality, religion or ability to afford proper legal counsel! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Medeis can't hear you, having died last year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- I remember. Wasn't attempting a seance, just a tribute. We'll all be dead soon enough, but the archives remain the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Medeis can't hear you, having died last year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that. So, it's really super-irrelevant to the story line, but it's in there merely as some sort of corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Six Million Dollar Man[edit]
What would it cost to "rebuild" Steve Austin today? 69.42.176.50 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- The series started in 1974. In current dollars, six million dollars would be about 30,000,000 dollars today. You can check this yourself by using one of the inflation calculator found here or here or here. I checked all three of those; they all give slightly different answers, but they are all around $30,000,000 --Jayron32 18:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- But perhaps improvements in technology may have brought the cost down somewhat. The price of this bionic arm starts at "around $3,000". Alansplodge (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's the rub, isn't it? Without returning to clarify what they meant, it is difficult to know how to meaningfully answer the OP's question. Both of our approaches are valid ways to answer it. --Jayron32 20:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. Bionic eyes are still in their infancy, but if Mr Austin had had the foresight to become a British citizen, he might have got one for nothing from the National Health Service - see this 2017 BBC report. Artificial legs that can run at 60 MPH are still a way off though. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- A better reference is from National Public Radio who considered exactly this question in 2015; "Planet Money" Does The Math On "The Six Billion Dollar Man". NPR note that a movie remake (still in pre-production in 2019) will be called the Six Billion Dollar Man, to which NPR comments: "It is hard to think of anything that gets a thousand times more expensive, even over 40 years, even in science fiction because basically, we live in an age of low inflation". If you regard the Six Million Dollar Man an item of technology, they came up with a figure of $12,000 based on the decreased cost of electronic hardware. Based on escalating US medical fees though, the $6m would have become $33m. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Which only again goes to show the dangers of playing these games with fiction. Elements of fiction, even ones presented precisely like 'Six million dollars', are not really subject to deep analysis in the way we are trying here. Elements of fiction are chosen for their narrative power and not for their accuracy or "real world correctness", and certain turns of phrase are more impactful in a narrative sense. The rhythm, prosody, and psychological "stickiness" of a phrase are as likely for it to be chosen as is its accuracy in a work of fiction, and "The Six Billion Dollar Man" certainly works better as a title in a narrative sense than does "The Thirty-Three Million Dollar Man" or some such. This type of fiction's goal is to entertain, and most people aren't sitting down at their television with calculators and spreadsheets to assure the accuracy of such things before deciding if it is entertaining. --Jayron32 21:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, this has entertained me for a while... Alansplodge (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Which only again goes to show the dangers of playing these games with fiction. Elements of fiction, even ones presented precisely like 'Six million dollars', are not really subject to deep analysis in the way we are trying here. Elements of fiction are chosen for their narrative power and not for their accuracy or "real world correctness", and certain turns of phrase are more impactful in a narrative sense. The rhythm, prosody, and psychological "stickiness" of a phrase are as likely for it to be chosen as is its accuracy in a work of fiction, and "The Six Billion Dollar Man" certainly works better as a title in a narrative sense than does "The Thirty-Three Million Dollar Man" or some such. This type of fiction's goal is to entertain, and most people aren't sitting down at their television with calculators and spreadsheets to assure the accuracy of such things before deciding if it is entertaining. --Jayron32 21:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- A better reference is from National Public Radio who considered exactly this question in 2015; "Planet Money" Does The Math On "The Six Billion Dollar Man". NPR note that a movie remake (still in pre-production in 2019) will be called the Six Billion Dollar Man, to which NPR comments: "It is hard to think of anything that gets a thousand times more expensive, even over 40 years, even in science fiction because basically, we live in an age of low inflation". If you regard the Six Million Dollar Man an item of technology, they came up with a figure of $12,000 based on the decreased cost of electronic hardware. Based on escalating US medical fees though, the $6m would have become $33m. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. Bionic eyes are still in their infancy, but if Mr Austin had had the foresight to become a British citizen, he might have got one for nothing from the National Health Service - see this 2017 BBC report. Artificial legs that can run at 60 MPH are still a way off though. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's the rub, isn't it? Without returning to clarify what they meant, it is difficult to know how to meaningfully answer the OP's question. Both of our approaches are valid ways to answer it. --Jayron32 20:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- But perhaps improvements in technology may have brought the cost down somewhat. The price of this bionic arm starts at "around $3,000". Alansplodge (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm just gonna keep it simple and stick with the $33 mil and call it a day! lol 76.71.158.109 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- They probably chose that figure 6 million because it sounded good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Everything sounds good at 4:20 if you've grown used to and fond of it, man. They could have called him Hubert Horace Hennessy, and even "Triple H" could have gone from "lamest name ever" to "that damn good". Seriously, it happened in a parallel universe already! Only there, The Million Dollar Man was interdimengled with Syxx and Steve Austin, before they rebuilt "The Rock" as a faster and more furious version of Don Muraco, Muraco having been the style at one time.
- Speaking of old days, I still remember coming in here as a young stoner, wondering how much a decent 1989 Keaton batsuit would cost, and being beaten like a government mule by a certain Outback Jack. G'damn, times have changed, mate! Glad you got the semblance of justice I couldn't, 76er (or is it 69er?). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not 4:20 a.m. in the American Midwest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nor in the Ontarian Northeast, but the passage of time is more or less universal across the species, as are the mass media marketing tricks that depend on it. Kleenex, X-Pac, Brexit...all sounded mighty stupid at first, but less so next time, and so on. Aside from seven and eleven, our internal reptilian metronomes would have accepted any number on the clock just as quickly, we just wouldn't be talking about The 1-2-3 Kid and Rob Van Dam today if the creator hadn't rolled a nice fat six to start. You can take that as a beer, weed or dice allusion, it was the coastal seventies. Everyone was doing anything and some of those things left a mark. You ever hear that old Steve Jones ditty, "Number of the Beast"? Totally irrelevant, but still holds up in the sound department, even played backward. Anyway, just tell Jack he's "off the hook" if you guys still party together, but in a "water under the bridge" sense, not "the roof is on fire". Actually, that's too complicated. Just give him a "hell yeah!" InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- You're just saying that because it's your catchphrase, brother. And you know what? I'm finally beginning to like it! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- I knew you were well-bred. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- D'ough! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- I knew you were well-bred. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- You're just saying that because it's your catchphrase, brother. And you know what? I'm finally beginning to like it! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- You lost me at the bakery. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nor in the Ontarian Northeast, but the passage of time is more or less universal across the species, as are the mass media marketing tricks that depend on it. Kleenex, X-Pac, Brexit...all sounded mighty stupid at first, but less so next time, and so on. Aside from seven and eleven, our internal reptilian metronomes would have accepted any number on the clock just as quickly, we just wouldn't be talking about The 1-2-3 Kid and Rob Van Dam today if the creator hadn't rolled a nice fat six to start. You can take that as a beer, weed or dice allusion, it was the coastal seventies. Everyone was doing anything and some of those things left a mark. You ever hear that old Steve Jones ditty, "Number of the Beast"? Totally irrelevant, but still holds up in the sound department, even played backward. Anyway, just tell Jack he's "off the hook" if you guys still party together, but in a "water under the bridge" sense, not "the roof is on fire". Actually, that's too complicated. Just give him a "hell yeah!" InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not 4:20 a.m. in the American Midwest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I would like to make a special mention on behalf of Steve Exhaustion, The $6.95 Man TrogWoolley (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- I remember being amused by a sign in our local toyshop sometime in the 1970s: "SPECIAL OFFER: Six Million Dollar Man - NOW only £1.99!". Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Classic case of the elusive markdown markout moment. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Going the other way, in a sequel to The Wild Wild West Loveless Jr menaced our heroes with his Six Hundred Dollar People – robots played by Shields and Yarnell if memory serves. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Iconic photo[edit]
I'm looking for a black and white photography of a British soccer player sliding after the ball into a puddle and making the water rise like a fountain. It's a great photo, a truly masterful capture, but I can't find it anywhere. You'll know it when you see it. Splićanin (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I assume you mean the image of Tom Finney known as "The Splash". Information on it is at the Wikipedia article Tom Finney#The Splash; it has been remade as an actual sculpture and fountain. If you google "Tom Finney Splash" you can find plenty of versions of it. --Jayron32 20:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Some more detail about the circumstances of the photograph, which was taken by John Horton on 25 August 1956 at Stamford Bridge [1] are in Tom Finney Autobiography by Tom Finney (p. 104). Alansplodge (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)