When a show has locations that are shown often enough, but not in every episode, how is that set handled? Is it created and put aside somewhere, or rebuilt whenever needed? For example, Niles' apartment in "Frasier," Deacon and Kelly's apartment in "King of Queens," Walter Skinner's office in "X-Files," the Mighty Weenie restaurant in "Family Matters," etc.
Answered general questions about movies, TV and more
This page is for general questions - if you've got a question about a specific title, please check the title-specific questions page first. Members get e-mailed when any of their questions are answered.
Answer: Sets not used in every episode are usually built in sections that can easily be dismantled and reassembled as needed. I've noticed in some shows that one shell structure is often repurposed into whatever is needed. In "Friends," one set was used for Chandler's work office, also as Rachel's office at Ralph Lauren, for Joey's new apartment when he briefly moved out, etc. The same with "Roseanne," where Crystal's house was also used for David's home, for "The Fifties Show" episode, etc. Darlene's Chicago apartment set was also used for Becky and Mark's Minneapolis apartment.
When an actor wants to leave a show or is fired from the show, why is the character killed off instead of having them do something else? In House M.D. Kal Penn wanted to leave the show so his character was written as having committed suicide. Wouldn't it have been better to have his character leave the show by either having him take a job somewhere else or having him get fired instead of him killing himself? In Roseanne, her character overdosed. Why not have her character divorce Dan instead?
Answer: Often times it's done for dramatic purposes, even if the actor leaves on good terms. Writing an episode where a character dies is much more jarring to the audience and something they may talk about the next day. Plus, actors that suddenly leave the show, don't return the next season, or die in real life, aren't there to say goodbye to friends, family, or colleagues before taking another job, going off to college, or getting fired. Which is what normally happens in real life, so it would come across as unrealistic. But there's plenty of shows/characters where an actor is knowingly leaving the show, so writers do have time to write a farewell type episode in. Also, by killing off characters, the audience doesn't have an expectation for their return and writers don't have to think about them. Of course, the alternative is recasting the character and then just dealing with the backlash or criticism of such a cheap move.
It does seem like recasting is rarely done, and the audience usually doesn't like the replacement.
There's a number of cast replacements in TV shows, but often it's minor characters. More prominent ones include Dick Sargent replacing Dick York as Darrin in "Bewitched," and Sarah Chalke taking over Lecy Goranson's role as Becky in "Roseanne." Neither replacement actor was warmly received by viewers.
There's a movie with Peter Billingsley. In the movie, his uncle is a spy. While on a mission, Peter asks the uncle if he can stay up past eleven o'clock. What movie is this?
Answer: I don't know about the quote, but there is a made-for-TV movie called "Massarati and the Brain" (1982). Billingsley plays the Brain and lives with his uncle, who is a secret agent.
Is there a general reason why American actors are chosen for starring roles as British characters, or vice versa? I've read about Renée Zellweger working at a British publishing firm to prepare for the Bridget Jones movie. Andrew Lincoln played a Southern US man on "The Walking Dead" for several years. Natalie Portman hired a coach to help her prepare for playing Anne Boleyn. With all due respect to them, would it not be easier to simply use an actual British or American actor?
Answer: Why "easier"? If an actor can do the right accent and is the best fit for the role, there's no great hardship in someone traveling for work and changing their voice. It's not like they're hiring someone with a completely inappropriate physical look that will involve hours in makeup every day. If the best person for the role happens to be a different nationality, far better to get them to do an accent and make the movie better, rather than hiring someone with the right natural accent but who isn't actually as good a fit. Producers and directors and casting directors don't owe it to actors of either nationality to give them work, their job is to find the best person for the film they're making.
Why the snappy response? This is why people are afraid to ask questions.
What was "snappy"? You used the word easier, I asked why. I didn't accuse you of implying anyone was owed work, I was just stating that as a fact. Slightly odd you'd reply "thank you for your comment" then later come back with your own "snappy" response, when I just answered the question you asked. No evidence anyone's afraid to ask question either - they get asked here all the time.
By "easier", I only meant that some of the preparation work might have been skipped by choosing someone who is already American or British. Also, I did not mean to imply that any actors are "owed" work. They're not. I was only curious about why actors are chosen for such roles. Thank you for your comment.
Even actors playing someone of their own nationality often have to work with a dialect coach to perfect a regional accent. An American actor who grew up on the West Coast does not speak the same as someone from New England, the South, Texas, New York, etc. The same for British actors as there are many regional accents and dialects they may have to master.
Answer: Working Title Films tried for years to raise the finance to make "Bridget Jones' Diary", but nobody was interested, even with Rachel Weisz and later Kate Winslet attached as Bridget. Then one day Renée Zellweger signed on and Miramax and Universal threw money at them. This explains the many jarring Americanisms in the film, sops to the film's US financiers.
Answer: Would add to the other answers that it's typical when casting a movie there are usually multiple actors considered for a main role. Movies are a huge and risky financial investment, so for a big-budget film, it's usually a small pool of bankable A-list actors that are considered, regardless of their nationality. In the case of Bridget Jones' Diary, Helena Bonham-Carter, Cate Blanchett, Emily Watson, Rachel Weisz, Cameron Diaz, Kate Winslet, and Toni Collette were considered. Some were already tied to other projects, Winslet was ultimately considered too young, Weisz was too pretty, and so on before producers landed on Zellweger.
Why do some actors "mouth" other actors' lines? This site has a few entries about actors doing this.
Answer: I've tried to catch this and don't think I've seen it, even when others list it as a mistake. However, I'd imagine this is more for television, especially when filmed in front of a live audience, where they're trying to get the shot in one take. When you're acting, it's not enough to just know your lines; you have to know your "cues", which are often the last line of the character speaking before it's your turn. So some actors are repeating the lines leading up to their lines in their head and may just subconsciously mouth the words (in the same vein some people mouth the words of the book they're silently reading). This is also why some actors don't like when their co-stars ad-lib their lines because it takes away their cues.
Answer: Agree with the other answer that this happens less frequently than claimed. TV and movie scenes are filmed multiple times even when there's a live audience to get the best result. The director and other techs on the set watch for behaviors like this and would correct the actor. Also, during post-production, experienced editors would notice it and use another version. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen and that some slip by the director or editor, but probably not often.
Why do modern movies have such a "dark" tone/look, compared to the generally brighter look (sometimes called "blue skies" feeling) of movies from the early 2000s and before?
Answer: Interesting question, so I did a little digging. Here's an article (too long to paraphrase) that might shed some light (pun intended): https://www.scrippsnews.com/entertainment/movies/why-are-today-s-movies-so-dark#:~:text=There%20are%20many%20technical%20reasons, to%20studio%20executives%2C%20and%20more.
When scenes take place in restaurants, a character will occasionally order something like "the chicken", "the salmon", or "the steak." In my experience, most restaurants have more than one option that involves chicken, steak, etc. Is there a reason for doing this on-camera, or have I just not found such a restaurant?
Answer: Someone ordering food isn't particularly interesting. "I'll have the t-bone steak, medium well, with a baked potato—hold the chives—and broccoli" would slow down the movie's pacing more than "I'll have the steak."
Answer: Totally agree with the other answer but would add that movie scenes are filmed multiple times over many hours to get the best result. In a restaurant scene, if an order is being brought to the table, it's easier with simpler food, like a T-bone steak, that won't make a mess, spill, smell, or wilt under hot lights. It also keeps the audience from being distracted by hearing some fancy menu item being ordered and then wondering what it is. Realistic-looking prop food may also be used, so simpler is better, easier, and more efficient.
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?
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.
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 often prefer familiar and predictable plots because they think they've figured everything out, know "who did it," who gets the girl or boy, that the hero will save the day, and so on, without realizing it's the same story over and over. I have friends who prefer 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 and want a predetermine outcome. Hollywood knows what audiences like, do test screenings for audience reaction, often change endings based on feedback, and formulate what makes the most money. Familiar plots are continually rehashed, knowing what sells to the widest audience. It's unfortunate as creativity and innovation is squashed for formulaic, profit-motivated projects.
Looking for a 90s movie about a man who has a younger wife with blonde hair. He lives a double life in another city. An article is published which could reveal his secret. He fakes his death and hides at the inn/resort that he and the blonde wife own. Eventually the blonde wife finds him, or he chooses to reveal that he is not dead. She decides to spend time living life as a single woman. The movie begins with her riding a horse. It's not "The Lies He Told" or "My Husband's Double Life."
Answer: There is a 1987 TV movie, "Deep Dark Secrets." James Brolin is married to a blonde Melody Anderson who fakes his death when he discovers a mobster he sent to prison is released. He hides out in one of the cabins they rent as a B and B-type resort.
That is the movie. Thanks! It has another title, "Intimate Betrayal." It's currently on Tubi, which seems to be where I watched it last.
In a lot of TV shows, a friend or family member will often just walk into a character's home without knocking on the door or ringing the doorbell first. Is there a reason why this is done for TV? Or is it common in real life and I just haven't met people who do this? I've always lived in one area of the United States, so maybe it's a regional difference.
Answer: This was a common practice in comedy shows in the 1970s (such as Good Times and Laverne and Shirley). Viewers were already familiar with the characters and their practices of just walking in, so the show left it in as something nobody really thought twice about.
I know there may not be a standard answer for this, but, in general, are actors supposed to say lines exactly as written in the script? Or is there a lot of ad-libbing/improvising? I once read that Natalie Portman blamed her performance in the "Star Wars" movies partially on herself because she was not good at ad-libbing then.
Answer: It really boils down to the director whether the actors are allowed to improvise or must perform to the script verbatim (or anywhere in between).
What are some movies that took an unusually long time to film and release?
Answer: "Roar," written and directed by Noel Marshall, took five years to film. It wasn't worth the effort.
Answer: Boyhood from Richard Linklater comes to mind, which was filmed over 11 years from 2002 to 2013, so a child growing up could be depicted accurately with his own and parents' aging, etc.
Answer: The movie "The Plot Against Harry" was shot and completed in the late '60s. It didn't get a proper release until 1989.
Answer: The Outlaw. It was made in 1941 but was not released because the Hollywood Production Code didn't like the way it featured Jane Russell's breasts. It was released for seven weeks in San Francisco in 1943, but pulled because of complaints from the Legion of Decency. It was released in 1946, in Chicago, Georgia and Virginia, with six minutes of footage cut from the film. They had trouble advertising it so it ran in a limited number of theaters. However, it sold out all showings making a tidy profit. It was released again at the beginning of 1947, in one theater by the end of the year it made $2 million. It was released again in 1950 in 25 theaters. There was a release in 1952. By 1968 it had grossed over $20 million.
Answer: The John Wayne movie, "Jet Pilot", was made in 1950 and didn't get released until 1957. David O'Russell's "Accidental Love" began production in 2008 and was released in 2015. Another is "My Apocalypse" that was filmed in 1997 and released in 2008. "Tulip Fever (2017) " also took several years to reach theaters after undergoing extensive editing and recutting. It failed at the box office.
Answer: The film "The Other Side of the Wind" by Orson Welles, currently available on Netflix. It was shot between 1970 and 1976, then only partially edited by Orson Welles (due to many complications) before his sudden death in 1985. His final film was completed and released in 2018.
Answer: Castaway. They filmed Tom Hanks' scenes as a chunky, middle-aged executive, then paused for a year while he lost weight and got buff for the scenes where he had been stranded on the island for a while.
Answer: There is a movie called "Dark Blood". It was released in 2012, but they started making it in 1993. Unfortunately, the star of the movie River Phoenix (older brother of Joaquin Phoenix) died due to a drug overdose when the movie was 80% finished, and the movie was shelved for 19 years. They eventually finished the movie when the director pulled the negatives out of storage to prevent them from being destroyed because the insurance company refused to keep paying for the storage.
Why do so many actors use pseudonyms instead of their real names?
Answer: Along with the Phaneron's answer, using a pseudonym might make it easier for a celebrity to do some things with their real name, such as buying a property or checking into a hotel room alone if they want.
Answer: One of the reasons can be for making a simpler and easier-to-remember name. For example, Andrew Lincoln's real surname is Clutterbuck. Sean Bean changed the spelling of his first name from "Shaun" to look similar to his surname. Another reason is that the Screen Actors Guild does not allow two actors with the exact same stage name, likely to avoid confusion. Michael Keaton's real name is Michael Douglas, which is a name already being used. Michael B. Jordan uses his middle initial because Michael Jordan is technically a member of the Screen Actors Guild for having appeared in Space Jam.
Answer: Agree with the other answers, but would add that in Hollywood's earlier days, movie studios typically remade their new talent. Actors were under years-long contracts, and the studios trained them, controlled their publicity and public image, crafted their appearance and style, chose their movie roles, influenced who they publicly dated, and so on. This redo often included changing actors' real names that were considered too long, unsophisticated, difficult to pronounce, too "ethnic," and so on. A good example is Archibald Leach who became "Cary Grant" or Norma Jean Baker who was remade into "Marilyn Monroe." Most actors today use their birth names.
Answer: But these days, the vast majority of actors use their real birth names.
I saw part of a film around 2001, I think Jeff Bridges was in it. A man and his wife are driving through thick snow and a horse and cart approach them in the opposite direction. The car skids and startles the horse, and the horse rears up and kicks through the car window, hitting the wife in the face and killing her. Never been able to forget that scene but I don't remember anything else about the rest.
Answer: There is a scene like this in Timescape (1991), also known as Grand Tour: Disaster in Time, which stars Jeff Daniels.
Haven't had chance to watch it yet, but from reading a synopsis online I think you are right. I got the wrong Jeff. Thanks.
I can't remember the name of this horror movie. It's from the late 2000s or early 2010s. A high school girl has a crush on her married teacher. She is a stereotypical quiet "loner." Somehow she dies, then comes back as a more sexy type with powers. At one point, after returning, she tells the teacher's wife "I died for him!" and the wife says "As would I!" (or something similar).
Answer: That sounds like the 2005 horror movie "Tamara." It was technically in theatres, but was primarily a video release.
Thank you. That is the movie.
Do networks only make money by selling commercial/ad time? A relative of mine has long insisted that they need to create "hype" and "shock value", because companies will race to pay more for an ad slot during a certain show or news coverage. No content/subject matter will be in a TV show, or on the news, if it "doesn't sell advertising." I know that networks look at ratings, but does everything really revolve around selling the ad spaces?
What is the name of this possibly Japanese cartoon I saw in the 80s? Futuristic soldiers are converted into cyborgs to work in space. It follows an elite team before and after the conversion. One was an alien from the planet 'Mime' who never spoke. Another were a twin brother and sister who had the code names 'Iron Heart' and 'Iron Will.' During conversion, they realized Iron Heart had a defective heart, so they replaced it with machinery, making his name more appropriate.
Answer: "SilverHawks" (1986). The twins were called "Steelheart" and "Steelwill," who had artificial hearts put in during their transformation. Steelheart was the sister, though; Emily Hart, and her brother was Will Hart.
Thank you! Me confusing iron and steel made it impossible to Google.
In the 2000s, many people enjoyed and appreciated movies from the '80s. Why is it that, in the 2020s, movies from the '90s and early 2000s need to be remade/"updated"?
Answer: Honestly, a huge factor is the financial one. Due to many differing reasons (50%+ drop in physical media sales over the last 10 years, streaming making content available for very cheap, skyrocketing production costs, inflation, etc.), studios have been losing money at a much greater rate than they have in the past. The industry has become very financially volatile. Therefore, brand recognition is very important. A familiar brand is typically a safer bet than an original idea. This is why sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc. have become the norm, and are given huge budgets... they're usually more likely to turn a profit. If people want to turn this around and have the studios start taking major risks and making more original films again, they're going to have to actually go see original movies in theaters with some regularity, consider buying DVDs/Blu-Rays again, etc. Basically, vote with your wallet... otherwise we'll continue to get nothing but remakes, sequels, etc.
I completely agree with your response. I think another, tiny factor is that trends and technology move faster now. In 2000, life still had many basic things in common with the 80s, despite changes in fashion and computers. Now, in early 2024, a show/movie from 2014 can already be "outdated": mentioning social media platforms that are less popular now, referring to social media trends, using words and phrases that are now considered offensive, etc.
Answer: I think this is mostly because of the advancements in CGI and special effects. Perhaps they think that better special effects will make the movie better. Also, if they think remaking a movie will make money, they will make it.
Money does seem to be a factor. '80s - early 2000s nostalgia has been a big trend for the past few years.
What TV character approached two people and said "Good morning" to one, then "Good afternoon" to the other, pointing out that the time had changed to noon in between? I know it's a trivial moment, but I suddenly remembered it and now I'm curious.
Answer: In the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror VIII, Professor Frink points this out to the family in a parody of "The Fly".
Thanks.
What soap opera (or maybe another type of show) had a young woman character called "Mouse" in the early 90s? I know someone who went to high school with the actress. She got the role shortly before graduation.
Answer: On General Hospital, in 1989, when the character of Frisco Jones returned to the show, there was a new teenaged character named Mouse who slept inside the catacombs in Port Charles. Mouse and Frisco had numerous scenes together for about a year on GH. Perhaps this is the young woman.
Thank you. I spoke to the person who knew her, and they do think it was "General Hospital".
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: To add to raywest's answer, on the Pod Meets World podcast, some of the actors from Boy Meets World have identified these types of sets as "swing sets."
Phaneron ★