Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2025 July 15

Entertainment desk
< July 14	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	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.

July 15

Movie-going before Psycho (1960)

• The movie established the tradition of audiences attending a feature from its opening, instead of arriving whenever they wanted, which had been the norm. (Chris Middendorp, "Chillingly perfect, Psycho changed everything", The Age, 8 May 2010, Insight, p. 6)

Was this actually so?

Our article says:

• It was the first film sold in the US on the basis that no one would be admitted to the theater after the film had started. Hitchcock's "no late admission" policy for the film was unusual for the time. ... Hitchcock believed people who entered the theater late and thus never saw the appearance of star actress Janet Leigh would feel cheated. At first theater owners opposed the idea, thinking they would lose business. However, after the first day, the owners enjoyed long lines of people waiting to see the film.

This says to me that if people turned up at any random point after the movie had started (btw, it's far from unknown even now), until Psycho they would always be allowed in. But as far as that being "the norm", I somehow don't think so. I think there's a difference between theaters allowing people in whenever they turn up, and people not caring whether they see the movie from the beginning or not, which is the implication in the original quote. To me, that would be like starting to read a book at Chapter 7, read all the way to the end, and then go back and read Chapters 1 to 6. Nobody would ever do that. OK, sometimes people are delayed and get to the movies later than they had planned, but that would hardly be the preferred way of doing things. Would it?

Can someone provide any information on this? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you any solid facts, but it was always my understanding that this was a publicity ploy by Hitchcock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking purely from experience, both personal (I'm old) and from reading: yes it was quite normal for people to enter a movie theatre at a random time rather than the advertised start of a movie.

Back in the day, movie theatres ran continuous repeating cycles of feature films and shorter "B-Movies" often interspersed with newsreels, short documentaries, and advertisements. One would start watching whenever one arrived and leave when one chose depending on personal schedule and intentions (which might actually be to smooch with your sweetie in the dark for as long as possible).

A cliché was that when you noticed the point in the cycle where you had started, you might say "This is where we came in" and leave. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.5.172.125 (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This still happened sometimes when I was a kid (I was born in 1959), and I think it was much more common earlier. It’s the origin of “this is where we came in,” originally meant literally: The speaker is saying, to one or more companions, that they have now reached the point in the movie where they came in, and there is no need to re-watch the remainder of the movie. See, for example, the discussion here, including the comments. I do not think Psycho actually had any significant effect on practices having changed since then. John M Baker (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was born in 1950, and I never experienced that, although I have heard of it. By the time 1960 rolled around I'd been to the movies at least 100 times, and there was always an advertised starting time. When the movie was over, it was over and everyone got up and left the theatre. Going to the cinema was like anything else (school, church, doctor, dentist, etc): you got there at or before the appointed time. I don't think that punctuality was something that was particular to my part of the world. But customs vary, as we know. The author of my original quote, Chris Middendorp, seems to be of the mid-late 1970s birth vintage, so he would not have a personal memory to rely on but I'd suggest he was sourcing his information from some place outside Australia, most probably the USA, where the rolling cycle seems to have persisted quite a bit longer than it did down here. That's if it was ever the case down here. I don't remember my parents ever mentioning it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a less-psychotic note, William Castle—the king of film gimmicks—gave patrons the option of leaving before the scary(?) climax of Homicidal and getting a refund. Some simply sat through the movie twice, leaving at the second break and thereby seeing the film for free. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect most moviegoers would want to see the movie from the beginning, but if someone showed up at the ticket counter halfway through a showing and wanted to go in anyway, under most circumstances the theater would figuratively shrug their shoulders and take the person's money. OTOH I've seen lots of movies on TV where I started watching when the movie was already well under way, and it generally wasn't a big deal in terms of the movie making sense. 2601:644:8581:75B0:5DAF:1DA:808:4E3D (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Un-completable baseball game

Ten-Cent Beer Night ended with a 5-5 score in the bottom of the ninth inning, and it was forfeited to the visitors because the home team's fans were responsible for a riot that prevented the game from reaching a proper end. Had the same situation occurred when the visitors were leading, would the rules still call for it to be forfeited, or could it be treated the same way as a game interrupted by weather at the same point? Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the major league rules:[1] There are specifications for when a forfeit is called, and once it's called then the game is over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what applies here is rule 4.07 (b):

The home team shall provide police protection sufficient to preserve order. If a person, or persons, enter the playing field during a game and interfere in any way with the play, the visiting team may refuse to play until the field is cleared.
PENALTY: If the field is not cleared in a reasonable length of time, which shall in no case be less than 15 minutes after the visiting team’s refusal to play, the umpire-in-chief may forfeit the game to the visiting team.

This is independent of the score at the time. I see no explicit delimitation of the circumstances under which the umpire can suspend a game, but the only ones I see mentioned are weather and the condition of the playing field.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:00, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umpire's judgment figures into it, as implied by the rule. The infamous Disco Demolition Night at Comiskey Park can be instructive. The riot occurred between games of a doubleheader. The field could not be prepared in a reasonable time for the second game, and it was forfeited rather than being postponed. A general rule of thumb would be that man-made disasters can result in forfeitures, while "acts of God" (rain, or power failures) can resulted in suspended or postponed games. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs and Lambiam, also curious, do you know about manmade disasters unrelated to the event? I'm thinking something like a terrorist attack, or a riot in the surrounding neighbourhood that can't even be controlled by the city's general police force, let alone a small group of policemen normally sufficient for game spectators. MLB postponed games scheduled for 11 September 2001 and days just following, but none (except maybe in New York) was directly affected; the postponement was due to the general sentiment of "this isn't a good time to be playing". Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the umpire; they are not bound by Bugs' rule of thumb.  ​‑‑Lambiam 20:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those situations didn't involve forfeits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11 September didn't, but that was the league stepping in. Based on the wording of the rule, it didn't sound like the umpires had discretion? But now I'm wondering if in my envisioned situations — some kind of social disorder or disaster much bigger than the sporting event itself — the Commissioner might step in and say "regardless of any rules to the contrary, this is big enough that we wouldn't punish the home team". Nyttend (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]