TedStixon

9th May 2023

The Conjuring (2013)

Correction: This isn't a documentary. It's a highly fictionalized retelling of their cases, which themselves are just dubious claims. This film also takes place in 1971 when the Warrens would have been in their mid-40s, and Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga weren't far off in age at the time of filming. Also, Lorraine Warren didn't die until 6 years after this film came out.

Phaneron

Documentary or film, makes little difference. The fact is that images of the real Warrens in the 1970s were an older couple as mentioned, while the actors in the films are considerably younger in their late 30s to 40s, where respectively age consideration should have lined up but did not.

pgsgrad16

Ed and Lorraine Warren were both around 45 in 1971 when the film takes place. Both of the actors were around 40 when the film was made and released. That's not a big difference in age. Just because they look a little bit younger doesn't make it a mistake. You're not going to be able to find actors who look EXACTLY like the real people. Also, how does the date the Warrens died have any impact on the movie? The movie takes place in 1971... not the present day.

TedStixon

Correction: It actually does make a difference when it comes to documentary vs. fiction, because this film isn't intended to be a true-to-life depiction, particularly as the real Warrens were con artists. This falls under artistic license. This film also features unequivocal evidence for the supernatural, including ghosts, demonic possession, and violations of laws of physics, none of which are true to the real world. Given all that, the fact that the Warrens look more youthful here isn't a movie mistake.

Phaneron

3rd May 2023

Saw (2004)

Question: One thing I have never understood through the entire series is Dr Gordon's test. To pass his test, Dr Gordon has to kill Adam by 6 if not his family is killed and he is left to rot. At 6 Zep calls saying he failed his test. He then cuts his foot off, shoots and wounds Adam. The film end with him having crawled to get help and jigsaw shutting the door on Adam. In Saw 7 we see Jigsaw helped him and he became an accomplice. Why did jigsaw not kill him or leave him to die as he failed his test.

Ssiscool

Answer: The movies don't directly address this. But in my personal opinion, even though he didn't do everything on time, Jigsaw recognized that Dr. Gordon ultimately was willing to make the sacrifices he had to in order to save his family. He also spent hours in the room listening to Gordon and Adam talking, and likely realised that Gordon was a good man despite his faults. So I personally believe that even though he didn't "pass his test" per se, Jigsaw had grown enough respect for Gordon that he saved him. (And indoctrinated him).

TedStixon

Is Hoffman dead or alive?

That's unknown at this point in time.

TedStixon

Trivia: Early in the movie, when George is speaking to John, he says, "Me Tarzan, you Jane." Even though this line has been synonymous with the character Tarzan, it has actually never been said by Tarzan at all in any movie or any stories written about Tarzan's adventures. This is officially the first time the line is used.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Johnny Weissmuller said it in his Tarzan movies.

This is actually a popular misconception. Johnny Weissmuller never actually said it in any of his Tarzan movies. He said it during an interview where he was describing the character. But he never actually said it onscreen during any of the movies. So the trivia is 100% correct.

TedStixon

23rd Feb 2024

Ronin (1998)

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.

Jon Sandys

Thanks for all your hard work.

Brian Katcher

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!

Jon Sandys

I second that! Jon does an amazing job.

raywest

Thanks! I've got no intentions of abandoning it, whatever the traffic. Still enough regular and irregular visitors to keep it trundling along!

Jon Sandys

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.

TedStixon

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.

I know there have been volunteers who do a lot of work here, but maybe that has dropped off.

raywest

Have been wondering the same thing.

raywest

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.

raywest

Question: Once cured and returned home, won't some of the villains, like the Lizard, still go to jail anyway?

Rob245

Answer: More than likely... but that doesn't strictly matter. They'll still have been cured, avoided death, and "saved" in a sense. Even if they lose their freedom, they still are going to have a happier ending than they would have otherwise.

TedStixon

Remember that Oscorp is a corrupt company in the Amazing series. More than likely, both Connors and Dillon might be killed in prison under orders, so some happy ending.

Rob245

That's a very bold assumption to make, especially considering they DIDN'T kill Connors after the events of the original "Amazing Spider-Man." At most, Connors will remain in prison. But I don't even know about Dillon. There's an exceedingly high chance he could just walk, especially presuming he'd be teleported back to around the time he was originally killed, and the world would think he's dead.

TedStixon

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?

TedStixon

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

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.

Bishop73

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.

TedStixon

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.

Bishop73

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."

TedStixon

Answer: Simply put MONEY.

Kevin l Habershaw

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.

KeyZOid

22nd Nov 2023

Batman Begins (2005)

Question: How did the League of Shadows use economics to attack Gotham?

Answer: By having their own people working inside the trading company, they would do a pump and dump. Take a small company, put the word out that it's the next big thing, watch the prices rise, then sell. Like insider trading, the millionaires become billionaires, while the billionaires become broke.

Answer: They used their influence to trigger the economic depression that was gripping Gotham when Bruce was a child.

TedStixon

What type of influence did they have?

It's never specified in the film, so any answer would be pure speculation. They merely say they attacked Gotham economically in the past. I'd presume they'd use power and threats to do things like tank companies, make people lose their jobs, increase homelessness, make it more difficult for people to get help, etc. Basically, just ruin the citizens financially.

TedStixon

6th Sep 2004

UHF (1989)

Correction: It's a fantasy, all happening in George's head. Anything can happen.

Being a fantasy sequence doesn't make a scene exempt from mistakes.

TedStixon

27th Aug 2001

UHF (1989)

UHF mistake picture

Continuity mistake: In the beginning during the Indiana Jones parody one of the men pulls a gun on Weird Al with his left hand. Then Al lashes his whip, slicing his arm clean off. Then we see a RIGHT arm fall to the ground, gripping the gun in its hand. [Explanation: The live scene was shot one morning, and the actor who had his arm whipped off was cleared and went home. After lunch the prosthetic arm was delivered, and it was the wrong arm. They were on such a tight budget that they couldn't delay the shot, and flipping the negative (so right becomes left and vice versa) wasn't an option because the scene with the small pond had already been shot, and couldn't now be shown in reverse. This is from Weird Al's website, www.weirdal.com.] (00:01:40)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: As with many "mistakes" posted for this film, this takes place during one of George's silly fantasy daydreams. Anything can happen - if a left leg had landed on the ground, it still would not be a mistake.

I think this is a very weak correction. When it comes to things like dream sequences, an Occam's razor approach is probably best: the simplest explanation is probably true. As in, unless it's blatantly done for effect, a mistake is probably just that... a mistake.

TedStixon

Four other "mistakes" in this film have been corrected, on the grounds that they occur during silly, fantasy daydreams by George. Check the corrections page on this site. Why should this "mistake" be any different?

If you check the timestamps, those corrections were from nearly twenty years ago. The system was different at that point in time. Basically, anyone could submit a correction, and there was a good chance it'd be accepted, even if the correction was incorrect. The current system, which was implemented a few years ago, is better in a way because it allows voting and debate. The fact is, as was pointed out, even Weird Al has admitted it was a mistake. Suggesting that dream/vision/fantasy sequences are completely exempt from mistakes is just plain silly, and a slippery slope in a way.

TedStixon

Correction: Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. I had inflatable decorations back in the 90s, and there were absolutely inflatable lawn decorations in the 80s. You can still buy some inflatable 80s decoration secondhand on sites like eBay. "Modern" inflatables like balloons date back 200 years, and the air-inflation process had been used prior to that even. I can only presume you're referring to the more current in-vogue inflatables that use fans... but even those existed before 2001, albeit they weren't as widely used. (Ex. The StarLab inflatable planetarium that many schoolchildren still experience to this day uses the same basic fan system and was invented in the 1970's.)

TedStixon

I researched my answer. Can you provide more info on yours?

MovieFan612

How could you have possibly done research on inflatables and come to the conclusion that inflatable decorations were invented in 2001? My info is that I literally owned some, and you can still find plenty second-hand online. Go to Etsy and search "vintage inflatable" and there are currently multiple inflatable decorations that date from the 80s and earlier that people are selling secondhand.

TedStixon

Correction: He says he had an inflatable Santa Claus, but nothing to suggest it was an "air blown" version that you seem to be talking about.

Bishop73

Inflatable means you blow air into it.

MovieFan612

Yes, but it doesn't mean to blow air into constantly with a portable fan. That's why kids before 2001 had beach balls and other inflatable pool toys. What you seem to be describing or alluding to are called "Gemmy Airblown Inflatables," introduced in 2001.

Bishop73

Very true, Bishop. And even then... the technology Gemmy Airblown Inflatables use existed long before 2001. As I said in my response, it's the same basic tech used for things like inflatable planetariums. I'm confused as to what MovieFan612 is getting at. They seem to be indicating that inflatable decorations in general didn't exist before 2001... which is just factually wrong.

TedStixon

Question: In the final sequence, Buffalo Bill turns off the lights. After agent Starling shots Buff Bill, the lights come back on immediately. How are they turned on?

Answer: She empties her revolver to kill Bill. As she does, she also shoots out of the window behind him. This is shown in the film.

I had the same question. The lighting doesn't look like coming from a window – a basement window.

I mean, obviously it's probably too much light to be coming out of the window realistically. But in the context of the movie, Clarice has just conquered the villain and saved the day, so having the light be bright is likely also a bit of a stylistic thematic choice. Light is associated with "good," and she has moved "out of the darkness," so to speak. So, they had the scene lit nice and brightly.

TedStixon

Answer: Peter could have webbed him up and called the police anonymously.

MasterOfAll

Very likely. However, there was a deleted scene in which Peter, out of anger over Gwen's death, almost beats Harry to death.

Yes. We also see Goblin getting knocked out when all hell breaks loose, and the gears all break apart. Chances are, Peter just webbed him up. (Although, as the other response says, he also got beaten up in a deleted scene.)

TedStixon

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: There is a feature on the DVD that shows the making of this scene, and that a dummy was used.

jshy7979

Incorrect. What they did was use digital effects to blend the fake eye socket of the dummy onto a shot of the real Cheech Marin because the dummy didn't look real enough in close-up. So, that actually is Cheech Marin, and you can, in fact, see him lightly breathing once or twice. The only part of the dummy you can see in these shots is the area immediately around his right eye, where they blended footage of the dummy in. They specifically said on the DVD that the dummy didn't look real enough to be used on its own. I'm not sure how you could have missed that part on the special feature because they show how they blended the two shots.

TedStixon

Factual error: As we see in some of this series, Michael pins his victims to the wall with butcher knives. A kitchen knife isn't capable of holding a person's body weight pinned to a wall.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Sure, it can. If it's a full tang knife jammed hard enough into a stud, especially given Michael's seemingly superhuman strength, it could definitely support a body.

No. There wouldn't be enough knife jammed in the stud to support a body. The average man has a chest depth of about 10", and Michael is shown using regular-sized kitchen knives, which are typically 6-12" in length... and that includes the handle. Honestly, none of the knives Michael uses would realistically be long enough to go all the way through a man's chest, let alone embed themselves into the wall behind the victim. So it's 100% impossible as depicted. This is simply a suspension of disbelief situation where the filmmakers knowingly included something completely unrealistic and impossible because it was a great visual. So it's 100% a mistake... but it's a cool mistake because it looks great on camera.

TedStixon

27th Oct 2017

Hannibal (2001)

Trivia: "The Silence of the Lambs" director Jonathan Demme was approached to direct and had expressed interest in directing a sequel for some time before the publication of the novel. However, he opted not to return, feeling the novel was too gory and excessive compared to "Silence..." and he didn't feel it would make a good film. Producer Dino de Laurentiis also suggested that Demme was also nervous to make a sequel, given the first film's reputation as potentially one of the greatest films ever made. "Silence of the Lambs" star Jodie Foster also refused to return, feeling the character of Clarice Starling was "betrayed" in the novel of "Hannibal."

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: According to Jodie Foster, she didn't return due to a scheduling conflict with another film.

Foster herself has said that the "scheduling conflict" excuse was just the polite "official" reason she went with to not throw shade at the production, but wasn't the actual reason. A lot of times, "scheduling conflict" is used as a fall-back explanation when someone drops out of a project. Her intense disliking of the original novel and first few drafts of the script is very well-known, and why she turned it down.

TedStixon

23rd Apr 2009

X-Men (2000)

Question: Jean and Storm combine their powers to get Wolverine to the top of The Statue of Liberty. Why is this? Wouldn't Jean's telekinesis be sufficient enough to levitate Wolverine to the top without Storm's power?

SocietyCynic

Chosen answer: Jean's powers were not that powerful at the time.

shortdanzr

But they were powerful enough to lift cars, water, etc. when she was like 7.

It's more that she doesn't have enough control over it.

lionhead

In addition to what Lionhead said, Xavier also says he altered her mind in "X-Men: The Last Stand" by creating psychic barriers to lock out the Phoenix personality, which also seemed to have altered her memory. So it's entirely possible (and likely) her overall power reduced when that happened, and didn't start to fully come back until the events of "X2."

TedStixon

20th Jul 2023

The Fifth Element (1997)

Corrected entry: When Leeloo escapes the lab by ripping through the wall, it's painfully obvious that the presumably "metal" wall is just made out of regular old tinfoil or a similar substance. It bends and breaks super easily, seems to be paper-thin, and tellingly, you can even see a bit sticking out at the end of the shot and the other side of it isn't painted... it's just the classic tinfoil "silver" color.

TedStixon

Correction: It is not meant to be a metal wall. It's not the outer wall of the room, just encased around the regeneration tube. It's possibly equivalent to MLI (Multi-Layer Insulation) used in astronautics. That is also gold on one side and silver on the other.

lionhead

I did not know about MLI. Thanks for mentioning that. That actually would explain it very well. It always drove me nuts how cheap and flimsy it looked, but if it's meant to be something like MLI, it 100% makes sense.

TedStixon

11th Jul 2023

General questions

I remember seeing a film in theatres in the 90s when I was a kid. I think it was a children's sports film. I seem to recall there being a scene where a boy spots another boy through a gap in a shelf at the store and remarks something like, "What a hunk!" At least I think it was two boys... one may have been a tomboyish girl, though. And I think it had something to do with football. Ring anyone's bell? Trying to rewatch childhood movies and it just popped into my head.

TedStixon

Answer: Sounds like the movie Little Giants.

Looked it up and that is 100% it. Thanks.

TedStixon

Question: At the start, she was to drive the truck to get gas. She never got there, and yet was able to drive all over. How?

Answer: Furiosa was not getting gas for the war rig; it is presumably fully fuelled. Furiosa was to fill the tank with gas to bring it back to be used for other vehicles.

BaconIsMyBFF

If you're going to get gas, why have a full tank in the war rig? Put enough in it to be able to get to Gas town, pulling the attached round tank. Fill the round tank and fill up the war rig. Return with lots of gas in a full round tank and a full war rig.

I believe there is some confusion here with how the gas tank system works on the war rig. The truck itself has its own gas tank; the tank that is being towed is completely separate. It's exactly the same as real-life gas trucks.

BaconIsMyBFF

Why does that question even need to be answered? You're going to use gas going there and coming back. It doesn't matter if the war rig was full or not when it left. Assuming they're going to be gassing the war rig up once they get there to collect the gas, it's going to come back with the exact same amount of gas no matter what. So it really makes no difference whatsoever. Also, what happens if they get delayed along the way? If they only have enough gas to get to Gas Town, but something happens, they'll just get stuck.

TedStixon

I agree, it's not very smart to fill the war rig with just enough gas to get to town. But it sounds like they're saying take whatever you can out of the war rig, and you'd have that much extra gas when they get back. For example, if the rig held 25 gallons and only needed 5 gallons to get to town, you can take out 20 gallons. The rig then arrives in town empty, fills up, and comes back with 20 gallons in the tank. So now you have 40 gallons instead of just 20 (plus whatever the tank holds).

Bishop73

I think the big point is what Furiosa was planning. She filled the gas tank of the truck up to be able to go further with it; she wasn't planning on getting the gas anyway.

lionhead

Ok, I can understand that... but I still don't see why it's a question that needs to be answered, hahaha. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why every tiny detail needs an explanation or answer, especially when it doesn't really matter for the story.

TedStixon

Answer: What she did most likely took months of planning. Who she could trust to help her. How exactly she could smuggle the girls out, and most importantly, gaining the trust of the boss to the point where he believed she was his obedient slave who could never betray him.

Answer: Nobody knew the war rig was full of gas. They thought she was going to fill the tanker and come back, not smuggle out the girls.

Sorry, can't believe that. The boss guy controlled everything. He would know where and how much gas there was. Also, lowering the truck empty would be a lot different than lowering it fully loaded.

The truck was supposed to be empty when it left. She was taking an empty tank to be filled, but smuggled the wives inside. It weighed probably 300 pounds more than it was supposed to, but that would be imperceptible to the people operating the elevator. The war rig likely weighs several tons.

BaconIsMyBFF

It's not empty, it is filled with water. The wives were hiding in the tractor.

lionhead

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.

lionhead

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.

TedStixon

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).

Bishop73

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.

TedStixon

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).

Bishop73

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.

raywest

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.