What exactly is the "lowest common denominator" audience? I've heard people say this when they think a movie or show is bad - that it was made for the "lowest common denominator." But why would studios/networks deliberately make something that the majority of people will not like?
Jon Sandys
19th Mar 2024
General questions
23rd Feb 2024
Ronin (1998)
Question: What is the most likely explanation for what was in the case?
Answer: Sorry for posting an off-topic comment, but why are so few questions and mistakes posted anymore?
In large part it's reduced traffic, sadly - I'm always running a bit of a backlog of submissions (about 200 currently), because life gets in the way, but some get auto-approved so there's often a trickle of new content regardless. Mainly though it's just that thanks to search algorithm updates the site's now getting half to a third of the traffic it was about a year ago. I think also there are just fewer mistakes being made! Going back a while a DVD would come out and people would spot a lot of relatively obvious things. Now so many get fixed with CGI before release, and with streaming being wholly digital, lots of things are fixed even after release.
Thanks for all your hard work.
You're welcome! I've got no intentions of abandoning it, whatever the traffic. Still enough regular and irregular visitors to keep it trundling along!
Thanks! I've got no intentions of abandoning it, whatever the traffic. Still enough regular and irregular visitors to keep it trundling along!
I have to assume it's just down to 1) maybe less people are submitting, and 2) the site primarily being run by one guy (Jon), and I have to imagine that he probably doesn't have the time to constantly check the site and do updates. I've noticed that sometimes it can take a while for things I submit to be posted, but they usually are within a week or two. To be fair, there's also been in excess of 600 mistakes posted within the last month, and I have around 60 mistakes waiting to be approved (going through the "Chucky" movies and shows looking for mistakes), so it's still happening... just a bit slower than it used to be back in the day.
I don't think it's a problem with fewer submissions. I've submitted several questions that have not made it onto the site yet, and mistakes were that were finally posted after an unusually long time.
Answer: Regarding the movie question, there's no way of knowing what was in the case. It is a plot device called a "MacGuffin," a term coined by director Alfred Hitchcock. It doesn't actually matter what the object is but it just drives the story. It can be any type of object or device such as a "secret formula," "enemy war plans," "nuclear weapon," "treasure map," and so on that the characters are either searching for or protecting. There was never any intention to reveal what it was. Its purpose is to motivate the characters' actions and tell the story. Most likely it was intended to be McGuffin just to keep the audience thinking about the movie long after it ends.
5th Dec 2023
General questions
For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?
Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.
I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.
From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.
I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)
Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"
It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)
My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]
Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.
I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.
No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."
Answer: Simply put MONEY.
Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.
5th Oct 2023
Goldeneye (1995)
Question: Was any reason ever given as to why Bond's gadget-filled car was barely used in this film? It seems odd to give the series a fresh start in many ways, make a big deal about his car with missiles inside the lights, and then he drives it for 30 seconds and gives it away. Why bother giving him a car at all?
Chosen answer: There hadn't been a Bond film for seven years, and it was a new Bond. They wanted to get away from the gadgets and show him at his best. It was a way to let people accept Pierce Bronsan, watching what he can do. He put a lot of Sean Connery into it.
I can see that, but it just seems weird to highlight the features the car has and then not use them. Would have been simpler to omit it entirely, but presumably BMW wanted some product placement.
According to Wikipedia, the deal with BMW came at the last stage in production, so they were only able to put the car in the movie but not make scenes where the gadgets are actually used. I can imagine they'd have to rewrite parts of the script and take more time filming to do that.
7th Sep 2023
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Question: During the fight in Marion's Bar, there's a shot with her holding a (makeshift) torch and loading her mouth with alcohol (probably Rum), draining from a small barrel. How did that potential scene of her "spitting fire" at the next opponent not end up being used in the film? Did they really sacrifice continuity for the sake of further establishing her as a drunkard?
Answer: I don't see it as a continuity issue - she uses the burning stick to smash over the guy's head. The fact that it's on fire is likely irrelevant, she just needed a club. As for her grabbing a drink, it's just a quick comic aside rather than trying to highlight any sort of drinking problem. The barrel is shot and draining onto the floor, she doesn't want to waste good rum.
4th Sep 2023
She-Hulk (2022)
Question: How could Skaar be Bruce's son? In "The Avengers: Age Of Ultron", Bruce tells Natalie that he can't have kids.
Answer: Bruce can't have human kids, but Hulk has entirely different physiology, and Skaar's mother is no doubt not human either. Changes the dynamic entirely.
20th Jul 2023
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (2023)
Question: Was Kittridge a good guy or a bad guy? I just couldn't figure him out by the end.
Answer: He's not a bad guy to the extent of murdering and plotting against the good guys, but he's not exactly morally upstanding either. Kittridge doesn't want to destroy the Entity like Ethan; he wants to gain control of it on behalf of the US government and is happy to deal with the White Widow or anyone else to achieve that end. His appearance on the train isn't especially nefarious; he's just the highest bidder.
Answer: He's either.
24th Jul 2023
Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan (2018)
Question: In the hearing on the plate, the name is John P. Ryan. Is this correct? (00:11:45)
Answer: That's right, that's his name. "Jack" is a common nickname for John. I think the P is for Patrick.
26th May 2023
Fast X (2023)
Question: Spoiler! Does this movie actually end with Dominic and his son Brian about to die and the bad guy Dante winning?
Answer: It does - it's a massive cliffhanger leading directly into the next (and apparently final) film. The team's plane has been shot down and crashed, seemingly killing them all (but let's be honest, that's unlikely...). Dom and Little B survive the drive off the dam and crash into the river. Dante looks down on them and arms massive bombs along the length of the dam, they apparently have nowhere to run to... End of film.
25th May 2023
Futurama (1999)
Question: Which episode is it where the characters visit either a museum or an archaeological dig of the 20th century, and come across a voiceover/narrator/scientist making wild and wrong assumptions about the use of common objects? I've got a quote in my mind that's something like "here's where people would maybe do [something] perhaps."
Chosen answer: In s02e06, "The Lesser of Two Evils", they go to "Past-o-Rama" amusement park. There's a hologram of an Old New York traffic and the voice over guy says something like "it was a forum for a free exchange of opinions", followed by New Yorkers yelling.
Thanks! I think what I was remembering was that combined with the Bigfoot video where the narrator says "In the dense forests of the Pacific Northwest dwells the strange and beautiful creature known as Bigfoot, perhaps."
20th May 2023
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997)
22nd Sep 2017
Predator 2 (1990)
Question: What does the Elder Predator say after Glover reads the pistol inscription? As in, the Predator says "take it", Glover reads it and says "1715", and the Predator then appears to say something else as he walks away.
Answer: Nothing which can be discerned. The subtitles on Disney+ simply say "growls, indistinct". Given the other times Predators speak English are fairly clear, if gutteral, and covered by subtitles too, this seems to be just some kind of grunting dismissal rather than any specific words. Or it's something in the Yautja language we're not meant to understand, such as commanding the pilot to take off, given the ship powers up immediately afterwards, but there's no canonical answer.
Answer: He says "Take it".
What does the predator say after he says "take it" he said something before he left.
Hard to pick out but he says "Major", in reference to the last time a Predator was killed by a human.
He doesn't say anything after "take it", just a short grunt as he turns around to leave. Try watching it with subtitles and you'll have it confirmed.
Answer: Leave now.
No I literally have it paused after replaying many times, and he doesn't say leave now, it's something more like peace out or something close as in two short sounds.
Answer: Drew's SCRIPT-O-RAMA.COM indicates he said, "1715", apparently in reference to the date inscribed on the gun. However, AVPGALAXY indicates that the 17th century "Matchlock Pistol" had "1640" engraved on it - which would have been in the 17th century (unlike the 1715 date).
Answer: To me it sounds like "Kill some" or "Kill them".
Answer: I think it was (in "predator lingo") "We're leaving. You should too."
6th Nov 2022
Lucifer (2015)
29th Aug 2022
The Batman (2022)
Question: Is this film supposed to be set in the same universe as the DC Extended Universe (in other words is this supposed to be a prequel, with Robert Pattinson's Batman being a younger version of Ben Affleck's) or is this set in a completely different continuity?
Answer: Completely different.
9th Aug 2022
Aliens (1986)
Question: I know there's a few different releases of this film with different scenes. Has it ever been revealed how the Aliens managed to get inside the complex? Ripley states they must have missed an entrance to which Hudson replies they didn't miss anything. Is there a deleted scene, director's cut etc that shows how the aliens got in?
Answer: It's shown in the film (both versions) that the Aliens use the space in the drop ceiling to get into the complex. The drop ceiling doesn't show on the blueprints so Ripley and the Marines didn't think about it. When Ripley wonders if they missed anything Hicks replies "We didn't miss anything." Hicks is technically correct, but Ripley then says "Something not on the blueprints, I don't know." They did not account for the fact the ceiling grates aren't the actual top of the room because they made their plans based on the blueprints.
The aliens used the space above the drop ceilings to move around the complex once inside, but it is never revealed how they actually got in from outside.
Alien: Resurrection shows the aliens are happy to sacrifice one of their own to use their blood to help them escape captivity - possible something similar happened here if they knew it was worth them getting inside.
23rd Jun 2022
Face/Off (1997)
Question: We saw how the first surgeon gave Archer Castor's voice (using the microphone and the "peach" comment recording). But my question here is after Castor died, a new surgeon comes in from Washington who assumingly never met Archer before. Even though Archer getting his own face back with similar surgery is understandable, how did he get his own natural voice back (considering he sounded like Castor when the surgeon met him and never heard his real voice before and couldn't with Castor dead)?
Answer: His voice was changed using an implanted chip - he's even warned it will be easy to dislodge. The chip changes the modulation of his voice, so removing it would mean his natural voice would return automatically.
Answer: Even so, it just takes a recording of the voice to match. That's how they calibrated Archer's voice to Troy's in the first place.
Answer: His chip was dislodged in the climax of the movie, if you remember he says to his daughter "hear my voice, I'm your father" and Castor says "use your eyes Jamie".
23rd Jun 2022
Star Wars (1977)
Question: If Darth Vader's hands are robotic then how can he use the Dark Side of the Force to choke anyone?
Answer: Hands aren't necessary for force usage - it's more a gesture to aid concentration (or for effect, or simply because it looks good on film). During Luke's fight with Vader in The Empire Strikes Back for example, Vader is flinging large objects at Luke without removing his hands from his lightsaber at all.
3rd Jun 2022
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Question: Does the trilogy stick to a coherent time-travel-logic or is it "mix-and-match"? While it purports to adhere to the "one universe, many detours" theory (which is why Jennifer is save in bad 1985), it also delivers proof for the multiverse theory, unless it's "explained away" such as: Doc was never killed. He already wore a vest (and brought a gun to the meeting with a teenager) because he was a bit paranoid. Since he never really died, there's no parallel timeline required for him to stay dead.
Answer: It's fairly consistent. Changes to the past affect the future, although the time travellers themselves are afforded a bit of convenient wriggle room, like time changing around them, changes not immediately taking effect, etc, so as ever some suspension of disbelief is needed. The timeline changes - originally Doc was killed, Marty went back, gave him a letter, Doc took precautions. That's not the multiverse, that's just the future being changed by actions in the past.
Answer: Why wouldn't they exist? This is a serious question (maybe I am missing something). In BttF, Marty was disappearing because his parents weren't going to get together for him to even exist. In BttF II, his parents got together (Biff says so - he calls George Marty's father) and he was born, so it is very consistent between both movies. So even with an erased timeline, Biff did not erase Marty and his siblings being born. As for the linear time or multi universal, I think the movie is consistent - only the time traveler remembers things that happened before the time traveling began.
Answer: It's completely mix-and-match IMHO. The movies constantly switch between linear and parallel timelines, either making changes affect the time traveller or not, depending on plot convenience. For example, in the first movie Marty is in danger of disappearing unless he gets his parents back together, and fixes it before undoing all he had done himself, which causes a paradox. But then, when he gets back, his parents and siblings are completely different, but Marty is the same person that supposed lived that new life, unreplaced. That simply doesn't make sense in a linear timeline. In the second movie it is even worse, with Marty and Doc still existing in a timeline erased by Old Biff with the sports almanac, for plot convenience.
26th May 2022
The Fifth Element (1997)
Question: When Korben first drops of Leeloo at the Priest's apartment, he is wearing a tank top. At the seam of his shoulder running vertically is a scar. The year before, Die Hard with a Vengeance premiered and McClane was injured in that same spot. Seemed like a strange bit to add to T5E. Did anyone recall any backstory or explanation for that scar? Other than his general only survivor of his unit (don't tell Fingers, that deserter!) description.
Answer: Bruce Willis has had that scar since he was 17, as a result of surgery after a broken arm.
11th May 2022
General questions
What film is it where two people are fighting in a mostly black corridor over an automatic weapon, and it fires, making a semicircle of orange over their heads, illuminating the scene?
Chosen answer: Found the answer elsewhere - I was thinking of The Matrix Revolutions, where Agent Smith in someone else's body is fighting with Neo over an arc weapon of some kind in a darkened spaceship.
Answer: It isn't very much to go on but the first thing that comes to mind is the 2011 remake of "Fright Night." At the end Charlie and Jerry the vampire fight over a shotgun in the underground basement of a building. When it goes off, holes in the ceiling, bring in the sunlight.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: It's actually the reverse - the lowest common denominator audience is meant to be the simplest, least demanding, lowest-expectations audience. Basically an audience that might want some special effects or a generic sexy plot, without being that bothered about creativity, artistic merit, etc. The broad idea is that that covers quite a large section of the population, just not a "highbrow" section. It's often applied to films or shows that might have a high commercial appeal (but not always) but get low critical ratings. Some/all of the Transformers films might fall into this category, for example. The people who like them really like them, but a lot of people don't, and they don't get good reviews, but still make a lot of money.
Jon Sandys ★
There is also a segment of "guilty pleasure" viewers. Unlike the lowest common denominator, they claim to be aware that a movie/show is poor quality, however, they get a smug satisfaction from watching. Low-budget thriller movies and "trashy" reality shows are good examples. Many people will watch those "ironically" and believe that they are superior to the audience ("I'm smart enough to know better"). Networks probably have these viewers in mind, too.
Totally agree with your assessment, but would add that many moviegoers prefer familiar and predictable plots because they think they've figured everything out, know "who did it," who ends up with the girl, that the hero saves the day, and so on, without realizing they've seen the same story in dozen of movies. I have friends like this who only want to watch one or two types of movies (romantic comedies for women and action/superhero movies for guys) where they don't have to think too hard about the plot.
raywest ★