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?
KeyZOid
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.
17th Sep 2022
General questions
I need help with the title of a book my teacher read to my class in 5th grade, circa 1995. The only details I remember were it taking place in either the North or South Pole, and the main character killed a polar bear by shooting it in the head.
Answer: It may or may not help, but polar bears don't live in Antarctica (the South Pole).
Answer: If you aren't recalling the details, the only movie (and book) around this time period that I can think of is "Alaska" (1996), starring Vincent Kartheiser and Thora Birch. But Vincent did not shoot a polar bear - a poacher shot a mother polar bear and the baby followed the kids while they searched for their father who had wrecked his plane.
I've never seen the movie Alaska, but the book in question feels like it was probably more of a survival story rather than an adventure. The only additional detail I can give is that the teacher assigned us to draw a scene from the book, and since the protagonist shot the polar bear in the head, many of the boys in the class, myself included, decided to draw that scene, complete with exaggerated gore.
"Alaska" was about survival.
I wonder if your teacher may have deliberately altered some information (e.g, the boy shooting the bear) to make the story more relevant and provocative to the grade level and whatever discussion questions that were given?
I've only seen the Nostalgia Critic's review of it, but wasn't it about the father's survival while his children were on an adventure of sorts to rescue him? Again, I'm not familiar with the "Alaska" book, but it seems like the protagonist for my book was an adult male and it was told from his point of view.
28th Aug 2022
General questions
When any movies are shown on television, why are non offensive lines dubbed with another line? Ex. In the movie *batteries not included, Carlos says to Frank, "You kill my head, man." When the movie appeared on TV, the line was changed to, You make me sick, man."
Answer: Agree with the other answer, but specifically to your example, phrases like, "You kill my head, man," while inoffensive regarding sex or profanity, could be considered problematic due to constant mass shootings and a concern about inciting violence. In other cases, some dialogue may be changed because it is now recognized as being socially and culturally offensive to women, disabled people, certain ethnic groups, and others.
Answer: It's often done so the movie can air on television and be presented to younger audiences. Ex. In the 1984 Ghostbusters film, Bill Murray says, "I'll sue your ass for wrongful prosecution," but the first time I saw it on TV (in the 80's) the line was now, "I'll sue your funny face for wrongful prosecution."
And to make the words more easily understood - "You kill my head, man" may have ambiguous meaning, but "You make me sick, man" is more straightforward.
Answer: To add the answers, generally movie studios provided edited films for TV airing. This not only includes dubbing lines that may be offensive, but deleting inappropriate scenes, editing for time, and formatting. Sometimes studios will add scenes if too many scenes were deleted to add time. The example you gave is from a 1987 film where standards are different from today. But the network or studio isn't going to re-release a newly edited version for today's audience. And it's unlikely the network would be able to play the original film without any edits.
18th Nov 2021
General questions
I've seen a few movies and shows in which a character wants to use a false identity. They find a record of a person who died in the same year that the character was born, and use that person's name. Why do they need to do this?
Answer: Using the identity of someone who is dead, generally their social security number, is called "ghosting." The main reason is because using a false identity is easier than using a fake identity. A fake social security number (as in made up) will raise flags whereas using a real number that doesn't belong to you won't raise the same flags, or at least not immediately. (Think of putting a credit card number in online, if it's not real, the system generally knows right away and rejects the sale). The reason someone wants to use a dead person's identity is because there's less chance someone is monitoring identity theft, whereas a living person might see accounts opened in their name, etc. As far as finding someone who died the same year the person was born is not ideal though since it could raise flags too. Ideally, the person would want to use an identity of a deceased person that's the same age, sex, and race.
Answer: Each is taking over a deceased person's identity and hoping that nobody realises that person has died. It is a way of establishing a birth actually occurred (as opposed to merely making up a name for which there would be no record of birth). In other words, a person can't exist or present oneself as a legitimate member of society without having been born; the deceased person WAS born and is no longer circulating in society, so taking on that person's identity at least gives the impression that the imposter is a legitimate member of society. Without taking on a deceased person's identity, the imposter would lack a history and presumably be more susceptible to being discovered. The chances of encountering someone who actually knew the deceased (and could seriously question the imposter's true identity) is relatively low. Until and unless someone becomes suspicious, the imposter can maintain the fake identity and continue living as a respectable member of the community.
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.
17th Nov 2020
General questions
Why is it that recent movie adaptations of old TV shows (specifically Starsky and Hutch, Baywatch and 21 Jump Street) were turned into parodies? Why weren't any of them played straight?
Answer: Because the filmmakers of today view therm as parodies. I admit the writing and directing style is not as sophisticated as today's work, but they told good fun stories. Back then they tried to keep costs down by any means necessary.
Answer: It hedges bets in case the action doesn't work, studio can claim they meant for this all along. Also the Mission Impossible films are played straight.
Answer: I'm not claiming to know the definitive answer, but I suspect it is for the same reason there have been remakes of old movies: Hollywood is out of ideas for original movies, tries to keep a steady supply of releases to make money, and it is easier/quicker. Playing them "straight" would require creating a new, meaningful story which is much more demanding than "making fun" of something already done. Moreover, the old TV shows turned into movies probably will do better (make a higher profit) if the audience is not largely limited to the older generation who may have watched the old TV shows. Presumably, the younger generation doesn't find old TV shows appealing and may even already make fun of them. Others do not even know what the TV shows were about, so making a contemporary version would not have the same meaning (or nostalgia) for those viewers. Comedy is something all generations can enjoy... or find more interesting than a lame story about old TV characters who have been forgotten.
I'd concur with this - it's the "four quadrant" idea: movies which appeal to both male and female audiences, and both over - and under-25s. An action-comedy has broader appeal than a pure action/drama, and especially given the three examples referenced are viewed as somewhat cheesy throwbacks now, regardless of the appeal at the time, it makes sense to take a more light hearted approach. Miami Vice is once example that was played straight which could have been ripe for mockery - it got mixed reviews and didn't set the box office aflame.
12th Jan 2016
General questions
There is a movie about a girl who is raised by the murderer who killed her parents in a car accident. Then she married him, I am not sure about the marriage part. I am trying to find this movie, can anybody please help me?
Answer: If the girl had a younger brother and the man had a physician/addict wife, it is probably The Glass House (2001?). The man made sexual advances towards the girl and set her up to look guilty and making false reports, but there was no marriage.
1st Jul 2019
General questions
What is the name of a Woody Allen movie containing a bird and a snail? I saw a few scenes in this over 20 years ago but don't really remember the film.
Answer: Broadway Danny Rose (1984)?
17th Sep 2018
General questions
In a lot of crime dramas, why is it when someone isn't aware that they committed a crime are they let go but in others they are arrested. Eg: In an episode of Law and Order: SVU, a teenage boy ends up raping his girlfriend's little sister but, he doesn't remember doing it because he was sleep walking so he was let go. In another crime drama, if somebody receives stolen property but was never aware that it was stolen, that person gets arrested.
Answer: It's called "drama" for a reason. Screenwriters seldom immerse themselves in legal fact, but almost always use legal consultants to just "fact check" their fictional work. As any attorney can tell you, it's virtually impossible to consolidate all of the intricacies of criminal or civil law into a one-hour television episode or a two-hour feature film. Even jury selection can last days or weeks, as the legal counsels attempt to explain "the law" and court procedure to jury candidates. So, anything you see in theatrical depictions of "the law" is often arbitrary and cherry-picked and sensational and has very little to do with the actual practice of law.
Answer: In general, there must be "mens rea" (guilty mind) or intent in order to be convicted of a crime. The defendant/accused had to be aware that a crime was being committed and there was no legal defense/ justification/ or excuse for committing the crime. There are usually exceptions to these general rules of law, such as "strict liability" offenses (merely committing the act makes the person guilty). Although a law cannot be vague, criminal statutes often must be interpreted (and one court's interpretation can be overturned by a higher court). The laws are not always clear-cut, legislators cannot necessarily foresee unusual acts that may or may not fall under a particular law or defense to committing a crime, juries are not always willing to convict defendants who appear to be guilty (think "OJ Simpson"), and so on. The legal drama shows often use very unusual situations and/or newly-decided cases to create a similar (perhaps bizarre) case that will have a dramatic or shocking outcome.
12th Nov 2019
General questions
I've noticed that in some TV shows, District Attorneys have the authority to investigate cases and make arrests - that's not the case in real life, is it?
Answer: The answer depends on jurisdiction and such things as the statutorily defined duties of the District Attorney (DA), population, amount of criminal activity in the area and resources. I can provide a partial answer using general information about DAs in U.S. counties. The DA is the elected prosecutor and known as The Chief Law Enforcement Officer. The DA is usually quite busy deciding whether to prosecute and, if so, trying the case in court. Both of these depend on whether there is sufficient evidence to go to trial and get a conviction. The DA usually relies on police to investigate crimes and acquire evidence, but it is the prosecutor's (DA's) ultimate responsibility to investigate criminal activity - so the DA could investigate/participate in collecting evidence. Almost anyone can make what is known as a citizen's arrest. The police are armed/better prepared to make arrests and there's little reason for a DA to risk injury/death by making arrests. In movies, it's all about drama.
21st Oct 2013
General questions
What is the name of the movie about children who are at summer camp pretending to be Indians and cowboys?
Answer: I can only think of one movie about kids at a summer camp and there was a counselor for an Apache Tribe: The Rainbow Tribe. I doubt this is what you are looking for, but no-one else has given any suggestions.
14th Nov 2019
General questions
Many actors and actresses have openly admitted that they hated the movies they starred in. If they felt that way, why do they agree to be in them?
Answer: There could be a handful of reasons. Perhaps they entered the project believing it could have been a good movie, but later realised the end product wasn't good or wasn't what they were expecting. Maybe the studio interferes and it goes through reshoots or rewrites. Or maybe they didn't really have that much investment in the project to begin with and were only doing it for the money.
Answer: Another possibility is to try to diversify and/or avoid being stuck in a particular type of role. For example, Daniel Radcliff did not want to be known forever as Harry Potter, so got involved in other types of movies (more adult roles) in order to continue having a career as an actor. (I'm not claiming that he didn't like the new roles - I'm only giving an example of why actors try to move on).
Answer: Because they were contracted by the film company or studio and had to be in the movie whether they wanted to or not. A classic example is Val Kilmer, who didn't want to be in Top Gun, but was contractually obliged to. https://news.sky.com/story/val-kilmer-i-didnt-want-to-be-in-top-gun-but-begged-to-appear-in-reboot-11977483.
Answer: To expand on the other fine answers, actors will take roles in mediocre movies solely because they need the money. They have to support a lavish lifestyle or their careers have peaked and, no longer being offered plum roles, take any job they can get, often in low-budget horror or mediocre sci-fi movies.
Answer: Some actors will accept almost any role in order to work under a particular well-known/famous director or alongside a superstar, hoping to become better performers via the experiences and, in turn, get better offers in the future. (It doesn't always work out, so there may be regrets).
25th Feb 2020
General questions
I saw a movie years ago that had two main characters and there were background plots of someone stealing from (I think) the mafia and a serial killer on the loose. I think they ended up at a motel together and the twist at the end was that the one you thought was the killer was the thief and vice versa. I was sure it was called hatchet man but I can't seem to find anything about it.
Answer: Sounds like NATURE OF THE BEAST Starring Eric Roberts and Lance Hendrickson.
That's the one! Thank you.
Glad I could help. That's actually one of my favorite movies.
20th Dec 2017
General questions
What was the name of the movie about a young boy named Matt and his neighbor who was an old woman recluse? He broke her fence and she made him repair it, and little by little they became friends - she taught him many things. She dies at the end of the movie.
Answer: Sounds like "A Rumor of Angels" starring Trevor Morgan and Vanessa Redgrave.
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