Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 August 9

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.

August 9

Video games or other entertainment forms that project pulses of air meant to simulate the feeling of solid objects

This is the Airborne Ultrasound Tactile Display:

youtube.com/watch?v=hSf2-jm0SsQ

The Airborne Ultrasound Tactile Display projects pulses of air. These pulses of air were meant to simulate the feeling of solid objects. Are there any video games or other entertainment forms that also directly project pulses of air meant to simulate the feeling of solid objects, or do they not exist yet? If they do exist, can you give me the names or titles of them? Ebaillargeon20 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Air hockey? Indoor skydiving? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I missed the part about the "simulate the feeling of solid objects". Clarityfiend (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't there originally: the person asking should note that it is better to clarify the question with a further post than alter the question after it has been asked and a reply received.

I don't know if it's even close to whatever you're looking for (judging from this and the last post you're looking for some sort of game that lets you feel... something?), but the devices Tactical Haptics demonstrated at GDC this year really did what they claim (produce the effect of actually "feeling" the virtual world). It was uncanny. If I put that aside since there aren't any actual 'games' available for it at this point, racing games have the most common complex haptic feedback I know of, having supported force feedback wheels for some time, which provide resistance and "rumbling" both meant to imitate actually driving an automobile. And then there's the Novint Falcon, which is definitely a thing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I got to try a system like that (possibly that exact system) at SIGGRAPH 2009, (A year after that video).

It was ... interesting, but not ready for prime time. I would be very surprised if a game was made from that technology. It was too limited, and not very powerful.

Perhaps it would be more useful in technical settings. Perhaps you could use it to get an intuitive, tactile sense of the general shape of a CAD model. APL (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of props in dress rehearsals

I have a question about "dress rehearsals" (if that's even the proper term). But, I have to start out with a preliminary question to insure that my premises are correct. So, I assume that dress rehearsals are typically held in the following three types of performances: (1) live theater; (2) television; and (3) film. Is my premise correct? By "dress rehearsal", I mean that the actors act out every little detail of the performance just as if it were the real performance. In other words, they use all correct props (not fake or "imaginary" props). And they perform all required actions (not just mimic or "fake" the actions). Here are a few examples of what I mean. If the actor has to eat a candy bar, he actually eats one in the dress rehearsal (whereas he just might go through the motions and fake the act of eating one, if it were a "regular" rehearsal). If they have to drink a glass of water, they actually do so. If they have to throw water in an actor's face, they actually throw it. If they have to rip up a piece of paper, they actually rip it. Stuff like that. I am almost 100% positive that this happens with live theater performances, but I am less sure about TV and film (since they are less concerned with "mistakes", as they can simply do as many re-takes as necessary to get the action correct in the final TV/film version). Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Dress rehearsals are mainly used in live theater. The idea is to go through the whole play, in costume, in one go, just as if it was performed in front of a paying audience, in order to work out the last few kinks.Most rehearsals are not in costume (those are expensive and often fragile) or stage make-up, and scenes are done over and over until done right. Stage lighting is also used, which often is not the case in regular rehearsals. Indeed, to use one of your examples, if the performance calls for actually drinking a glass of water on stage, the actors will do it in a dress rehearsal. The idea is to be as close to an actual performance as possible (the company will sometimes invite an audience to be there, if it's important to take audience reaction into account, for example in pacing comedies to account for when the audience bursts into long and loud laughter). Films and television shows are often shot out of order, on different locales, etc. so you only have rehearsals for certain scenes. Scenes that include costly special effects never go through a full "dress rehearsal". The other difference is that the rehearsals are also filmed and may be used in the final version if they are better than the actual performance.--Xuxl (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So, in a theater dress rehearsal, let's say that the scene calls for something to be ruined or destroyed or to cause some "damage". Will this action still be performed, or will it simply be "faked" for the dress rehearsal? Some examples of what I mean might be: an actor throws a pie in another actor's face; an actor rips the shirt off of another actor; an actor throws a vase against a wall, breaking it. Stuff like that. Where there is some form of "damage" to a prop. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In live theatre, the actual breakage will happen both at the dress rehearsal and the technical rehearsal before it. Theoretically, the only difference between the dress rehearsal and the first night is the absence of an audience. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Superhero book/movie/comic

Is there any superhero movie or book where the hero is defeated in the end? By "defeated", I mean that he/she loses the fight, gets killed, or otherwise fails so completely that no reasonable person can deny the villain has won. --50.46.159.94 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Heroes are often killed in comic books and then brought back at some later point. See retcon for the term for this and other similar work-arounds to plot points. Two notable examples being when Superman was killed and the Dark Phoenix Saga in the X-Men comics. Batman has also had other characters fill in for him when he broke his back. Dismas|^(talk) 00:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to change the question midway through, but I'm not looking for comics where the audience knows the hero will be brought back and "win" some time in the future. The hero only counts as "defeated" if there's no possibility of coming back to life or winning in the future. --50.46.159.94 (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There's always a possibility of coming back to life. Sherlock Holmes was killed off but that didn't stop Arthur Conan Doyle from bringing him back from the dead. All it takes is a little bit of "when you saw him get killed, well, he didn't really die. You see, he miraculously survived and now..." --Jayron32 05:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Did the audience mostly believe that Holmes actually died and wouldn't be brought back? If so, that's good enough. I think there's a big difference between a periodic comic or TV series that's never going to kill off the superhero (or else the comic would have no purpose), and a book that has no financial reason to keep anyone alive. In the latter, death of the main character feels a lot more final and believable. --50.46.159.94 (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The audience believed that Homes had died (though they clamored for Conan Doyle to write more stories about him), and Conan Doyle intended for the "The Final Problem" to be the end of Holmes. His initial response to the audience's pressure (after eight years) was to publish The Hound of the Baskervilles, which was set before Holmes's death; only with "The Adventure of the Empty House" did Conan Doyle come up with the story about Holmes's survival of the Reichenbach Falls incident. (See Sherlock Holmes#"Great Hiatus".) Whether S.H. can be considered a superhero is a whole other question. Deor (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Another thing writers of franchises do is to create a character as a persona adopted by different people: If the character dies, he's replaced by a new persona who takes on the mantle of the character. Dr. Who and Green Lantern are famous for doing this, but there's been multiple Robins, and there's some speculation that James Bond works this way as well. So, just another wrinkle in the fabric of how character continuity can be preserved even in the face of death. --Jayron32 17:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thor ain't what she used to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The most obvious answer is Watchmen, in which the heroes uncover a plot to carry out an atrocity but fail to stop the villain from carrying it out. After the fact, they agree they can do nothing about it without making the situation worse - the one hero who does not agree is killed. And the villain achieves what he set out to do and is not punished except perhaps by his own conscience. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

However, the "villain" may or may not be a true villain, since he thinks he is doing what he does for the good of mankind. Of course, Hitler probably thought that too. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

here (TV Tropes) should be more examples.--Pacostein (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)