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?
Bishop73
5th Dec 2023
General questions
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.
11th Jul 2023
General questions
It seems to me that older shows, for the most part, had more "stand-alone" episodes: you could easily watch them if you missed the previous episode or two. If I am correct, this is why characters often had new love interests for just one episode. Nowadays, a show is often called a "series" and all episodes must be watched, even a "Previously on..." recap doesn't cover everything. Any thoughts on why this is?
Answer: Well, in the old days, people couldn't really watch whenever they wanted or even record what they wanted to see. So trying to follow a continuing show was a lot harder. That's why there were way more shows where every episode was standalone, as you didn't have to bother watching every single one to be able to follow it. You could skip a few without a problem. These days, watching all episodes is a lot easier because of recording and digital releases. You can watch whenever you want, in the right order.
Answer: There's a lot of factors that go into this. I think the biggest one is that seasons in general have gotten shorter, meaning there is less room for stand-alone episodes. It used to be the norm for shows to have 20+ episodes per season, whereas now, seasons with 13 or fewer episodes are more common. (This is for many reasons, including higher production costs, viewership fluctuations, streaming making shorter seasons more in vogue, etc.) And as a result, many shows now just basically feel like one big movie that's split up into chapters/episodes since there's less time for side-stories or stand-alone episodes. There's good and bad to this. On one hand, it means shows need to be more efficient and concise, and there's likely to be fewer dull moments. But on the other hand, it also means that there's slightly less time for side-characters, sub-plots, world-building, etc. So it's a double-edged sword. Also, "show" and "series" have always been used interchangeably. That's nothing new.
I don't remember what year it was, but if I understand correctly, one of the results of one of the writers' strikes a while back was reduced episodes to make a complete season or a half season (with some exceptions, like daily shows).
Yeah, from what I recall, during the 2007 writers' strike, a lot of seasons had to be produced with fewer episodes due to lost time from the several months the strike lasted. And that did help set a certain precedent that many shows could be successful with fewer episodes per season. Although, I think it wasn't really until about five years later that you started to see shorter seasons becoming more widespread.
Answer: I also think another point is, there's just so many more shows being produced today, so we see more examples of these types of series shows. And, if more shows are being produced, there's more competition to get viewers to watch live (as opposed to recording to a DVR or streaming). Companies that buy ad time during a show know if viewers are recording, they can skip their ads (which is why we see more countermeasures to this).
Answer: Adding to the other answers: In TV's earliest days (from the 1950s), shows had more episodes per season, over 30. During the summer hiatus, fewer reruns were shown until the new Fall season. That resulted in self-contained episodes and one-time characters or situations that were rarely mentioned again. Episodes could be shown in any order, without losing continuity. The half-hour sitcoms were like extended skits. Many early TV shows were written by radio-era writers when maintaining a consistent, non-visual storyline was more challenging. It was just a different way of doing things. As TV evolved, plots became extended throughout a season with fewer episodes. Keeping viewers involved and guessing what happens in the next episode helps ratings.
11th Jul 2023
General questions
Can different episodes of a show "belong" to different companies? I ask because streaming services will sometimes have a show, but a few episodes are missing throughout. I know that a streaming service may not have the rights to the newest episodes of a current show, but why are random episodes missing from older shows? (As examples, I have noticed this with "ALF" and "Alfred Hitchcock Presents".)
Answer: In some ways, yes. For example, in "AHP", some of the episodes were stories written by other authors. S0401 was a Roald Dahl story. For whatever reason, the streaming services didn't get the rights to show that episode (too costly, wasn't given permission, or didn't try). Sometimes an episode contains a copyrighted song that they didn't get the rights to stream (sometimes they'll cut that scene or dub over the music with something else). Sometimes episodes are pulled for being too offensive or controversial. For example, Hulu pulled 5 episodes of "Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia" for using black or brown face. For "Alf", I didn't see any missing episodes. But sometimes a 2-part episode will be combined into 1 episode, so IMDB says there's 26 episodes, but only 25 episodes are listed, with 1 episode being about twice as long.
Thank you. I've been watching "Alf" on the Roku Channel. I think there is an episode missing from Season 1. "Border Song" is listed as 1x18, then "Going Out of My Head" is 1x20.
That's strange. It may have something to do with where Roku got the content from, and the content was already missing. Before answering, I looked up the shows you mentioned on Tubi, and all episodes of "Alf" are there, including "Wild Thing" (episode 19). Tubi is a free streaming app I use on my TV.
19th May 2023
General questions
Are there any TV series that were cancelled before a complete first season was even aired? I am mostly curious about sitcoms and dramas/thrillers, not reality shows.
Answer: Honestly, there have been numerous TV shows cancelled before a complete first season was aired. Another great example is cult-favorite sci-fi series "Firefly," which was cancelled before the 14 produced episodes finished airing. "Emily's Reasons Why Not" is another good example. It's a romantic comedy series that was cancelled after only one of the six produced episodes aired. (The remaining five episodes never aired on TV, but were quietly released on a DVD set.) "Viva Laughlin," a musical comedy-drama series produced by Hugh Jackman was cancelled after only two episodes, and none of the remaining episodes have aired or been given a DVD release. "Mockingbird Lane," a re-imagining of "The Munsters," was cancelled after it's pilot was aired as a TV-special, so the remainder of the first season was never produced. There's honestly probably hundreds of shows that were cancelled before a complete first season was aired.
I was wondering if there are contracts that require the entire first season to be shown, before a network can decide not to show another season. I guess not, based on the answers here.
Shows being pulled mid-season isn't indicative of what other shows' contracts consist of. Some shows may have had it in their contracts that the entire season be aired (there are shows that get pulled mid-season beyond season 1). I don't have personal knowledge because that would be a lot of contracts to read to find out. So maybe someone does. But there's plenty of shows that don't produce an entire season prior to being picked up, so it's possible all the episodes produced were aired.
Answer: So, so many. Drive comes to mind - Nathan Fillion thriller about an illegal road race, only had a few episodes before being pulled off air. "Selfie" (2014) with Karen Gillan and John Cho was cancelled by ABC after only 7 episodes. "Do No Harm" (2013) cancelled after 2 episodes. The Dictator (2012) starring Christopher Lloyd only had one episode.
Answer: One of the shortest TV shows ever was the 1997 series "Lawless," starring former NFL player Brian Bosworth. It was cancelled after the first episode. Also, "Cop Rock," a TV show in the 90s, was cancelled after only 11 episodes. "When The Whistle Blows," a TV sitcom in the 80s, also only lasted 11 episodes.
Answer: There was a police drama roughly 10 years ago called Golden Boy. It was about the youngest police Commissioner in NYPD history and kept hinting at a department-wide shootout that led to the man's promotion. It lasted 13 episodes.
Answer: Another show was called "Brimstone" and had actors Peter Horton and John Glover. The show only had 13 episodes.
The 1963 ABC "The Jerry Lewis Show" was originally planned for 40 episodes in the first season. It went off after 13 shows.
Answer: Outlaws 1986, was cancelled after a few episodes. Sitcom In Case of Emergency, with Kelly Hu, was cancelled after only a couple of episodes.
28th Dec 2022
General questions
I am trying to remember an episode of a show that I watched at my Grandparents house one summer. I want to say it was Stargate but I'm not so sure. I remember a lady takes a baby boy and later discovers that he is sick with something. She is told that all of the baby boys in this specific dimension have something in them that makes them sick and eventually die. I remember she fights to have him saved and I think her father is able to get him the antidote to make him better. What was this from?
Answer: I found it the show was called Sliders.
Was it "Mother and Child", s04e14?
Answer: If you're looking for a Stargate SG-1 episode, maybe s02e20, "Show and Tell." The Reetou are an incest-like race out of phase and thus invisible to the unaided eye. One of the Reetou, referred to as Mother, genetically engineers a human boy and sends him to SG Command to warn them. But because of his rapid growth, he is quickly dying. He develops a bond with Jack and takes the name Charlie, the name of Jack's (now dead) son. By the end off the episode Charlie's organs are shutting down and the Tok'ra agree to take the boy and blend him with a symbiote to heal him. Although we never discover if it works or not.
I checked it out and that isn't it. This is driving me crazy. I remember that people travelled through tunnels or something to get to different dimensions or alternate worlds or something like that. I remember the baby receiving the medicine and I think he lives as well. I remember when he gets the medicine it is through a weird looking syringe that was put flat against the baby's arm and then a man injecting it into him. I want to say it was around 1999 maybe 2000 if that narrows it down.
17th Mar 2009
General questions
I am looking for a comedy (maybe from the late 80s?) where the male character checks for his wallet, keys, and balls (not necessarily in that order) before leaving his apartment. Does anyone know what movie that's from?
Answer: This also happens in Nuns on the Run, which is a bit more within your timeframe.
Answer: In Austin Powers, The Spy Who Shagged Me, Austin said "Testicles, spectacles, wallet and watch" while touching each place as he says it.
It should be noted that in both films, they're not actually checking for them, it's how to remember the proper way to make the Catholic sign of the cross.
11th Apr 2022
General questions
Trying to remember where I saw this scene from - a guy is telling a story about where a racing dog caught the mechanical rabbit it was chasing and got electrocuted in the process.
Answer: Actually I saw it again earlier tonight - it was the criminal minds episode To a Better Place.
Answer: Except for the man and the dog, There is a Bugs Bunny cartoon, "The Grey Hounded Hare," Bugs believes the mechanical rabbit is real and tries to stop the dogs from chasing it, after disposing of them, he kisses the rabbit and gets electricuted.
3rd Feb 2022
General questions
I feel like this might be an Eddie Murphy movie, but an adult (Murphy?) for some reason is trying to bribe a kid (maybe to be quiet about something) with a coupon for a scone. The kid's reply is something like "a scone? What do I look like, the queen of England?" When I search for the quote, all I get is pictures of the queen and scone recipes.
Answer: The movie you're looking for is "Imagine That", which has got Eddie Murphy in it. The quote in question is present in the trailer for the movie https://youtu.be/s2kYKjwsmS8.
Thank you for that.
23rd Jan 2008
General questions
In American movies, I sometimes notice little flag shaped things on people's letterboxes, that can be moved up and down. In Australia, where I live, I've never noticed these, nor have I noticed them in countries I've visited (I haven't visited America). What is the purpose of these flag shaped things, and are they solely American?
Chosen answer: It's actually a very practical device, and they are mostly used in rural areas that have roadside letterboxes. The homeowner raises it when there is outgoing mail to be picked up. The postal carrier can put the flag in the "up" position when there's a delivery.
I've never heard of any mailman doing that. The signal flag is only for outgoing mail.
I think the question is about the "little flag" (usually yellow), not the standard red flag that the owner raises when s/he puts outgoing mail in the box and doesn't want the postal carrier to bypass the mailbox if there is no mail to be delivered to that address that day. Regarding the small yellow flag that is near the bottom of the door (whereas the red flag extends above the box to be more visible), the yellow flag pops up when the mail box's door is opened. The carrier doesn't have to "put the flag up" to indicate a delivery - it is automatic - again, the flag goes up when the door goes down (is opened). The yellow part usually faces toward the house so that the homeowner (or renter) can see from the window if any mail has been delivered. With mailboxes that do not have the little flag, people have to walk to the mailbox to see if there is any mail. The mailboxes with the little flags can be bought on-line but are becoming obsolete with "informed delivery" emails.
Answer: Outgoing mail to be picked up? The US doesn't have post boxes? How strange.
The US does have post boxes, but if someone decides to install a full service mailbox, it's more convenient. Generally using the post box can be a bit faster since the mail carrier who picks up the mail might not return in time for the mail to be processed that day.
27th Jun 2016
General questions
From what I vaguely remember it's about a woman in a fancy big house. There is a party going on. This guy is being nice to her and they are flirting. She says she has to go somewhere. He begs her to stay with him - she promises to come back, then she goes off, races back, and when she comes back the house is old and some person tells her no one lived there for over 100 years. I think if she had stayed the spell would have been broken. If someone has any ideas please put me out of my misery.
Chosen answer: It sounds like you're thinking of "Brigadoon". A Scottish village is under a spell where it only appears for one day every 100 years (which was done to preserve the way of life of the villagers.) When two men find it, one falls in love with a woman villager and if she were to leave the village, the spell would be broken and the village of Brigadoon would disappear forever, along with everyone in it (if he stayed he'd have to leave the real world behind). There's been a lot of adaptations of the story, so not sure which version you saw. Two versions I know of are a 1954 film and a 1966 TV movie.
The movie described in the question is not "Brigadoon." For one, the entire village disappeared and there was no old house with someone in it that remained in the intervening 100 years. Also, in Brigadoon, it was the man who came upon the village, not the girl.
Possible, but I've noticed when people only have a vague memory of things, they confuse what they saw with another film or mix up some points. The key points of 1 day and 100 years and a broken spell pointed to "Brigadoon." But there's been adaptations of the film that the person might have seen which may have alternate minor plots that I'm not familiar with, which I mention so the person could have a reference to look for in case I was wrong in guessing what they saw. I've noticed with these general questions that the original posters sometimes reply if the suggest film is not what they were thinking of.
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: 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.
TedStixon
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.
Jon Sandys ★
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.
KeyZOid
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.)
TedStixon
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?"
KeyZOid
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.)
TedStixon
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?]
KeyZOid