What are some movies that took an unusually long time to film and release?
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: 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".
In some English shows or movies, sometimes there's a scene where an English speaker can't understand a foreigner because of the language they're speaking. Like "I'm sorry, I don't speak/understand German." So what happens when these shows or movies get translated/dubbed into that foreign language? So in my example, if it was dubbed into German, would they dub all the German lines into a different language, like French?
Answer: It really depends on the show and the circumstances. In the Airplane! movie, for instance, the Black characters speak with a thick Bavarian accent in Germany and a thick Neapolitan accent in Italian dubs. In some Spanish dubs, however, I've heard characters say 'I don't speak Spanish' in Spanish. It's understood by the audience that the characters are actually speaking English.
For a period of time starting in the mid-2000s, it became common for most major DVD releases to have both 1- and 2-disc editions. Typically, the 2-disc edition just had more bonus content and cost a few dollars more, while the 1-disc edition had less content and was cheaper. I never understood this. This was before streaming became huge, so it didn't incentivize buying the DVD, nor did the 2-disc edition cost much more, so it couldn't have had much impact on profit. So why was this even a thing?
Answer: OP here. From everything I've been able to find, it pretty much just looks like it was just a bit of a gimmick. Put some extra bonus content on a second disc, call it a "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "Limited Edition," and charge an extra $5 for it. People who wanted just the movie could buy the single disc for the standard price, and people who wanted more special features paid a slightly more expensive "premium price." And it would subtly boost profits.
I think you're right - the extra content largely existed already, there was no significant cost to produce it, and mastering a second version of the DVD wouldn't cost much in the grand scheme of things either, so any extra amount would have been pure profit. Showgirls (first example I found) apparently made $37m in cinemas and $100m in DVD sales. A couple of extra dollars per unit would add up. It might also serve as "anchoring" if that's the right term - having a more expensive 2 disc version makes the single disc version look like better value to the casual buyer (while also appealing more to the movie buff). There are certainly some films I splashed out on for the fancier version because I was a fan (and then of course never really watched the extras much!), but going back a while there was literally no other way to see this extra content unless you bought the special edition.
From the perspective of why they were simultaneously released (and with a relatively small difference in price), I'd agree. But this is different from why two-disc versions were released some time after the one-disc version (and with a substantial difference in price). That is, the reasons why this initially happened are different from why it continued to happen.
I was trying to refer to concurrent releases in my question. Unfortunately, the character limit meant I could not give any examples. I was referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Transformers." I used to go to the store at midnight to buy new DVD releases around the time those movies came out, and there would almost always be a single disc DVD with just the movie and a few features, and a 2-Disc set with more special features released on the same day. (A 2-disc special/anniversary edition being released a few years later for an older title makes sense, and is a different matter entirely. I'm referring to when multiple editions of the same new release were put out at the same time.)
Yes, I finally figured this out! You are asking about a specific time period and looking for a straightforward answer, without putting things in historical perspective (the developing technology and decreasing costs of mass-producing DVD movies). The extras (plus a little more) that used to be included on the standard editions were now on a second disc with the package costing about $5 more. It probably came down to "will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?"
It probably came down to 'will customers [be stupid enough to] pay extra money for this two-disc DVD?' "and unfortunately when I was a teenager, I was, hahahaha. But yeah, the more I look into it, the more it does just seem like a total gimmick. (I feel like a good modern comparison might be steelbooks... cool packaging, but usually sold for a very high markup even though it's the same exact discs.)
My "victimization" came much earlier. I had the standard release versions of movies and, later, when I started to see much more expensive two-disc versions, I thought, "Who would buy these now?" Well, I think I ended up buying 3 versions of "Terminator 2." [Why?]
Answer: From my experience, the 2-disc versions provided two different formats. Typically, the 1-disc version was Fullscreen and, depending on its release, did have additional content like commentaries and deleted scenes. The 2-disc version included a Widescreen version as well as extra materials, extended cuts, remastered versions, or special edition, etc. Later, when Blu-Ray came out, the 2-disc set usually included a standard DVD version. Some DVDs were sold as 2-sided without a lot of extra content but having a Fullscreen and Widescreen version.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'm not referring to those. I'm more so referring to titles like "Spider-Man 3" or "Super 8". Their DVDs only came in widescreen, but had two versions. A single-disc edition with just the movie and a few special features, and a 2-disc edition that had more special features. I'm curious as to WHY many titles had single and two-disc editions with the only difference being the amount of special features. It just seems more logical to release just the 2-disc edition. This answer basically just explains that 2-disc existed.
I apologise for misunderstanding the question, because what you described in my experience was atypical. And in my opinion, it makes sense to release two versions, but I'm afraid to answer why if I turn out to still not understand the question.
No problem. It's a very weird, specific question, hahaha. Wouldn't surprise me if there isn't even really an answer beyond just "they decided to try it for some reason."
Answer: Simply put MONEY.
Profits are almost always, if not always, a factor. The two-disc versions with "extras" might have been enough to get certain movie buffs to buy them, even though they already had the single-disc version - but I doubt very many people actually did so.
I remember a sitcom episode in which a man got angry if someone mentioned David Letterman. He would shout something like "David Letterman? Slowly I turn around!" I don't think he was a main character, though.
Answer: It's from the TV series "Cosby", s02e17, "Fifteen Minutes of Fame." Hilton and Griffin are in a jail cell and Griffin tells the guard they need to get to the David Letterman show. Gilbert Gottfried (who's credited as playing himself) gets angry hearing David Letterman's name and goes into a rant about how David Letterman ruined his life.
Thank you! That sounds like what I saw.
Before the mid-2000s or so, people used to joke about bribing the cable guy to hook up the premium channels (movies, adult channels, etc). Was that always just a misconception? Today's technology prevents the installer from doing it without the cable company knowing.
I know companies pay a lot of money to advertise during events such as the Superbowl, but what about "regular" TV? Did they choose to have their ads run during particular shows? I am mostly thinking of broadcast TV, before streaming was popular.
Answer: Companies typically pay to run their ads during times when their target audience will be watching TV, such as toy companies running ads during Saturday morning cartoons, and in particular, a popular company like McDonald's would run their Happy Meal commercials during that time as well.
Answer: To add to the other fine answer, TV advertising costs are determined by how many viewers watch a particular program. TV networks set advertising rates based on different programs' ratings. Those with the highest viewership are the most expensive to advertise on. TV ratings were (and still are) determined by the Nielsen Media Research Company, who measure who and how many people watch each TV show. Companies naturally want to advertise their products and services when the largest number of viewers are watching and also to their target market.
I watched this movie recently, but I think it was a miniseries first. A woman reads an erotic novel. The author is mysterious and has never revealed his appearance. Some fans speculate that "he" is actually a woman. After a book club meeting, a man introduces himself to the woman. He is the author. Later, it turns out that he is lying - he is actually an editor employed by the author. The roommate meets with the real author, but only his or her shoulder area is shown.
Answer: "Submission" (2016). It was a mini-series, but is now showing as a movie on the Tubi app.
A guy in a sitcom episode was describing his dream woman. A fantasy woman appeared while he described what he wanted. At one point he said, "I want her to be sporty...but not too sporty." The fantasy woman bounced a ping pong ball on a paddle about twice, then she said, "This is boring. Let's have sex!" Pretty sure I saw it before the late 2000s.
Answer: I think it's from the TV series "Unhappily Ever After".
I participated in an online survey about a possible new TV show. In the "pilot" episode, a woman's boyfriend proposed to her, but he and another girlfriend/wife were actually scheming to steal her money. However, he sent her a German Shepherd puppy, which she had always wanted. The ending implied that he had mixed feelings and really cared about her. I think I watched this sometime between 2016 and 2021 (I know I didn't see it in the past two years).
Answer: I want to add: I think I remember the main character woman having red or reddish-brown hair. Her fiancé's "real" girlfriend (the other scammer) was blonde. Of course, if this show continued after the pilot, there might have been changes to the cast.
I watched this movie on TV in 2006-ish. A woman was pregnant, and the father was one of three or four guys. Somehow, none of them really knew which one had slept with her; only she knew.
Answer: After some searching, I think this is the 1999 movie "Kimberly", also called "Daddy Who?"
Answer: You saw it in 2006, did you mean it was set in 2006? Because I know two movies with that plot but made in the 1960s. "Doctor, You've got to be Kidding?" Sandra Dee plays a young woman who is pregnant, and three different men want to marry her. "Buona Sera, Mr. Campbell," an Italian woman, Gina Lollabridga, who had an affair with three different men during World War II. She had a daughter but doesn't know which one is the father. She solicits support money from each of them. Then all three men return to Italy for a G.I. reunion.
I watched it on TV in about 2006. It was probably made before then, or it was a new TV movie. It was not set in the '60s, probably in the '80s or after. The setting was "modern" (not necessarily what we call modern in 2023 but more modern than the '60s). I appreciate your suggestions, though.
I remember seeing a movie on Hallmark that had three brothers, a little girl and a lighthouse. I can't remember the title.
Answer: Possibly "Three Wise Men and a Baby" (not the 1987 film "Three Men and a Baby") but more likely, "Christmas With Holly." Both are Hallmark movies. The latter involves three adult brothers caring for their deceased sister's young daughter. It is set in Friday Harbor on San Juan Island in Washington state. San Juan Island has two lighthouses. (The movie was actually filmed in Nova Scotia.)
What is the name of a movie about a teenage girl having a "crush" on a writing/English teacher, and he claims to have had books published? Eventually, after they have sex, she finds rejection letters and discovers that none of his writing was published. I think the movie ended with her leaving town.
Answer: "Blue Car" (2002). Agnes Bruckner plays the student, and David Strathairn plays the teacher.
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: "Roar," written and directed by Noel Marshall, took five years to film. It wasn't worth the effort.